Safari MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to explain critical automation-relevant details: whether the operation blocks until navigation completes, what happens when history is empty (error vs. silent no-op), or confirmation that this affects only the active tab.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of exactly four words with zero redundancy. For a stateless parameterless action, this level of brevity is appropriate and front-loaded effectively.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While sufficient for basic invocation, the description lacks completeness regarding edge cases and scope (e.g., cross-tab behavior, history bounds checking). Given the tool's low complexity and absence of output schema, it meets minimum viable standards but leaves operational ambiguities unresolved.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool accepts zero parameters, which per evaluation guidelines establishes a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no configuration is needed for this action, though it could explicitly confirm the tool uses the browser's default back behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Go back in browser history' uses a specific verb ('go back') and resource ('browser history') that clearly conveys the tool's function. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling safari_go_forward and safari_navigate through directional specificity, though it could explicitly mention this operates on the current Safari tab.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like safari_navigate (for direct URL access) or safari_go_forward. It also omits prerequisites such as requiring an active browser session with history entries to navigate back to.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.