Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
macos-agent-bridge

macos-agent-bridge

by juliusloon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

safari_list_tabs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists open Safari windows and tabs via Safari scripting, returning titles and URLs for AI agents to inspect browsing context.

Instructions

Read open Safari windows and tabs, titles and URLs via Safari scripting. [v1.0.0; permissions: automation:Safari]

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "safari_list_tabs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
toolYestool name
errorYes
statusYes
versionYessemantic version

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the mechanism ('via Safari scripting') and the required permission (automation:Safari), which is actionable auth context an agent needs before invoking.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence carries the full purpose, with the version/permission tag compactly bracketed at the end. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless read tool with an output schema (return values need not be explained) and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. It states purpose, mechanism, and required permission. It could add a note on ordering/scope of the returned tabs, but nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to clarify and nothing in the description misrepresents input needs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (open Safari windows and tabs, titles and URLs), clearly distinguishing it from siblings safari_open_tab and safari_close_tab. An agent can identify the operation without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the name and description (list what's currently open), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives like system_list_windows or system_get_active_window that also enumerate windows. Minimum viable, no routing help.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools