Extract readable text from a Safari page, prioritizing main/article content and falling back to body text. Use it to capture page content for summarization or analysis.
Get the readable text of the page (main/article first, else body).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | No | Tab id "windowId:tabIndex" from tabs_list. Omit for the active tab of the front window. | |
| max_chars | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the content-selection behavior ('main/article first, else body'), which is beyond the schema. However, it does not mention truncation behavior for max_chars, whether the operation is read-only, or what the return value looks like beyond being text.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical adds useful extraction behavior without bloating the definition.
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 simple two-parameter text extraction tool, the description covers the core behavior, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, it should mention truncation via max_chars and the return format. It is minimally adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent relying solely on the description.
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 only 50%: the tab parameter is described in the schema, but max_chars has no description in the schema or the tool description. The description adds no parameter meaning and does not compensate for the undocumented truncation parameter. Baseline would be 3 if schema coverage were high, but here the description must do more.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the readable text of the page.' The parenthetical clarifies extraction priority (main/article first, else body), so the agent knows exactly what content is returned. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling read_page, so it falls short of a 5.
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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of siblings like read_page, find, or javascript. There are no exclusions or alternative-selection cues; usage is only implied by the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.