Safari MCP Server

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

Without annotations or an output schema, the description partially compensates by disclosing that titles and URLs are returned. However, it omits critical behavioral context such as whether it returns tab identifiers needed for sibling operations, whether it covers all windows or just the foreground window, and the return data structure (array vs object).

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 is a single, efficient sentence of eleven words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and every word earns its place by conveying the core operation and return value specification.

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 the description compensates for the missing output schema by mentioning titles and URLs, it remains incomplete regarding scope (all windows vs. current window) and fails to establish the relationship with dependent sibling tools that consume tab identifiers. For a read-only enumeration tool, this leaves functional gaps in the agent's understanding.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4 per evaluation rules. The description correctly implies no configuration is needed to list tabs, maintaining this baseline without adding unnecessary parameter details.

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 clearly states the action (List) and resource (open tabs in Safari) and specifies the returned data fields (titles and URLs). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like safari_read_page or safari_get_source, the verb 'list' inherently distinguishes it from content-extraction tools.

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, nor does it mention that the output is typically used as input for safari_switch_tab or safari_close_tab. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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