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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'context menu,' it fails to specify what happens after the right-click (does the menu remain open, can it be interacted with, is there a timeout, or does it return menu items?). No side effects or state changes are documented.

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, efficiently structured sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the action ('Right-click'), clarifies with the synonym ('context menu'), and specifies the targeting mechanism, delivering maximum information density.

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 the simple nature of the tool and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about the resulting browser state (open context menu) and what the agent should expect after invocation, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping x/y as coordinate pairs and establishing the alternative relationship ('or') between selector and coordinates, which clarifies that these are mutually exclusive input methods rather than required together.

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 specific action (right-click/context menu) and target mechanism (CSS selector or x/y coordinates). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like safari_click and safari_double_click by explicitly naming the distinct mouse action.

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 implies that either a selector OR coordinates can be used, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose between these input methods, nor when to use this tool versus safari_click or safari_native_click. Usage is clear from the name but lacks strategic guidance.

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