MCP Safari Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but fails to describe critical traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires the element to be visible, potential errors (e.g., if selector doesn't match), or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that interacts with web elements. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, return format (e.g., plain text vs. structured data), or prerequisites (e.g., needing a page to be loaded). For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to ensure reliable use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'selector' parameter clearly documented as a 'CSS selector for the element'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid selectors or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('text content of an element'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling alternatives like 'get_page_info' or 'execute_script' that might also retrieve text content, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_page_info' (which might return broader page content) or 'execute_script' (which could extract text via custom JavaScript), the agent lacks explicit direction on selection criteria, such as preferring this for direct CSS selector-based extraction.

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