Safari MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It partially compensates by documenting return fields ('tag, text, href, value') since no output schema exists. However, it fails to disclose safety characteristics (read-only vs. modifying), error behaviors for invalid selectors, or the significance of the default limit of 20.

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?

Extremely efficient single-sentence structure with essential information front-loaded ('Find all elements...') and return value metadata appended parenthetically. Zero redundancy or wasted words.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure. However, given the lack of annotations and the complexity of the sibling ecosystem (60+ tools), it should provide more behavioral context (read-only assurance, relationship to DOM state) and usage guidance to be fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for both 'selector' and 'limit'. The description references 'CSS selector' but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema (e.g., example selectors, syntax constraints). With high schema coverage, this meets the baseline expectation without adding extra value.

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 core action ('Find all elements') and mechanism ('matching a CSS selector'), distinguishing it from sibling 'safari_get_element' (implied single vs 'all'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with specialized extraction tools like 'safari_extract_links' or clarify when to use generic querying versus specific extraction methods.

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. It does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., needing to navigate first), performance considerations for broad selectors, or when to prefer specific extraction tools (safari_extract_*) over this generic query.

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