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 discloses the detection mechanism ('Detects ProseMirror/Draft.js...') and implementation approach ('uses their native API'), plus scope ('Replace ALL content' implies destructive replacement). Minor gap: doesn't mention prerequisites like element visibility or focus requirements.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: (1) action + target, (2) positive examples, (3) negative examples + alternative, (4) implementation detail. Well front-loaded with the core action. 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?

Given a single string parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is appropriately complete. It covers purpose, differentiation from siblings, specific supported technologies, and usage constraints without unnecessary verbosity.

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% with the parameter already described as 'The complete code/text to put in the editor'. The description reinforces this through 'Replace ALL content' but does not add syntax details, format constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific action ('Replace ALL content') and target resource ('code editor'), explicitly listing supported editor types (Monaco, CodeMirror, Ace, ProseMirror). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by contrasting with 'rich text editors' and naming 'safari_fill' as the alternative.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('Use ONLY for code editors') with concrete examples ('Airtable automations, GitHub gists, CodePen, n8n code nodes'), explicit when-not-to-use ('NOT for rich text editors like Medium/LinkedIn'), and names the specific sibling alternative ('use safari_fill for those').

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