MCP Safari 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 states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if scrolling is immediate or animated (though the 'behavior' parameter hints at this), whether it waits for the element to exist, what happens on failure (e.g., if selector isn't found), or if it requires a loaded page. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential side effects.

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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and potential behavioral complexity. It doesn't cover key aspects like how parameters interact, error handling, or what the tool returns (e.g., success status). For a DOM interaction tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (selector, x, y, behavior) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., using selector vs. coordinates) or defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does 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 action ('Scroll to') and the target ('specific element or position'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling scrolling tools (none are listed among siblings, but the description doesn't explicitly confirm it's the only scrolling tool).

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. It doesn't mention whether to use it for elements versus coordinates, how it relates to other navigation tools like 'navigate' or 'go_back', or any prerequisites (e.g., needing a page to be loaded first).

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