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. It successfully discloses the implementation mechanism ('via Performance API'), prerequisites ('no setup needed'), and scope limitations (only URLs/timing, not headers/status codes). Minor gap: doesn't specify if this is read-only or idempotent.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with key differentiator ('Quick... no setup needed'), followed by output description, and capped with alternative guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description partially compensates by indicating the tool returns 'URLs and timing.' However, it doesn't specify the data structure format (array vs object) or specific fields. Given the tool's narrow scope and clear sibling differentiation, this is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 has 100% description coverage for the 'limit' parameter. The description doesn't explicitly mention the limit parameter, but with complete schema documentation, no additional semantic explanation is necessary. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool provides a 'Quick network overview via Performance API' and specifies exactly what it returns ('URLs and timing for resources'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling capture tools by contrasting 'quick overview' with detailed alternatives.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance: states 'no setup needed' as a prerequisite benefit and explicitly names the alternative tools ('safari_start_network_capture + safari_network_details') for when detailed request/response info is needed. Clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use.

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