Safari MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose critical behavior: what happens when timeout is reached (exception vs silent return), whether the tool returns the found element, or if it blocks execution. For a wait operation, these omission are significant.

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?

Single sentence of 9 words is efficiently structured and front-loaded. No redundant information, though slightly too terse given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 3 simple parameters with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a wait utility with no output schema or annotations, it should explain timeout failure behavior and return semantics to be 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%, establishing baseline 3. The description adds value by clarifying the 'OR' relationship between 'selector' and 'text' parameters ('element or text'), implying alternatives rather than combined requirements. However, it does not clarify if both can be provided simultaneously or interaction effects.

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 action (wait) and targets (element or text on page). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'safari_wait' (likely time-based waiting) or clarify that this is for dynamic content appearance rather than fixed delays.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'safari_click_and_wait' or 'safari_wait'. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded first) or failure scenarios.

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