MCP Safari Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what happens when forward history is unavailable, whether navigation is synchronous/asynchronous, if it waits for page load, or what errors might occur. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a navigation tool.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies the browser context. Every word earns its place in conveying 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?

For a navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes success/failure, what happens after navigation, or how this interacts with other browser automation tools. Given the sibling tools include various browser interaction methods, more context about this tool's specific role is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools.

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 ('Navigate forward') and target ('in Safari history'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'go_back', which performs the opposite navigation action in the same browser context.

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 like 'go_back' for backward navigation, 'navigate' for direct URL navigation, or 'refresh_page' for reloading. It lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., requiring forward history to be available) or exclusions.

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