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 disclosure burden but fails to explain key behavioral traits: whether changes are persistent, if there are min/max dimension constraints, what happens during fullscreen mode, or whether this triggers page reflow/media queries. The term 'resize' is insufficient for an automation tool requiring precise window management.

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 extremely concise at only four words with no filler content. While efficient, this brevity comes at the cost of necessary context given the lack of annotations, preventing a perfect score.

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 having only two parameters, the description is incomplete for a UI automation context. It fails to clarify the scope of resizing (OS window vs viewport), lacks output schema documentation, and provides no error handling guidance. The ambiguity between window management and viewport manipulation is a significant gap.

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 ('Window width'/'Window height'), establishing a baseline score of 3. The description adds no additional semantic value regarding units (pixels), inner vs outer dimensions, or aspect ratio constraints.

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 provides a clear verb (resize) and resource (Safari window), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity regarding whether this affects the OS application window bounds or the browser viewport dimensions, which is a notable ambiguity given the sibling safari_emulate tool that handles device emulation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like safari_emulate (which may also affect dimensions) or safari_navigate. There are no stated prerequisites, constraints, or exclusion criteria.

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