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 and successfully discloses the technical mechanism ('Sets .value and dispatches change event'). This reveals important behavioral traits about DOM manipulation that the schema doesn't capture, though it omits error handling behavior.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose declaration, technical mechanism, and sibling differentiation/alternative. No wasted words and properly front-loaded with the primary action.

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 focused 2-parameter interaction tool without output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, the mechanism, and the critical distinction between native and custom dropdowns that prevents misuse.

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?

While the schema has 100% description coverage, the description adds valuable semantic context by explaining what the 'value' parameter actually does (sets the .value property and triggers the change event), enriching the agent's understanding beyond the schema's basic 'Option value to select'.

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 ('Select an option'), the target resource ('native <select> dropdown'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'native' versus custom implementations.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use the tool ('For custom dropdowns (React/LinkedIn)') and provides the exact alternative workflow using sibling tool 'safari_click' twice. This is exemplary guidance for tool selection.

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