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 tool waits for an element to appear, implying it may block execution until a condition is met or timeout occurs, but doesn't describe what happens on success (e.g., returns the element, continues execution) or failure (e.g., throws an error, returns null), nor does it mention side effects like page stability or performance impacts. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential timeouts and conditional behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('wait for an element'), making it immediately understandable. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the target and context ('on the page'), with zero waste.

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 tool's complexity (involving waiting, timeouts, and visibility conditions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., whether it returns the element or a success status), error handling, or behavioral nuances like polling intervals. For a tool that could fail or have side effects, more context is needed to guide effective 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 clear documentation for 'selector' (CSS selector), 'timeout' (maximum wait time in milliseconds), and 'visible' (wait for visibility). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining selector best practices, default timeout behavior, or the interaction between 'visible' and element appearance. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 ('wait for') and target ('an element to appear on the page'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_element_text' (which retrieves text without waiting) or 'click_element' (which requires the element to already exist), but the verb 'wait' implies a temporal aspect that distinguishes it from immediate retrieval or interaction tools.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention using this before interacting with an element (e.g., before 'click_element') or as an alternative to 'execute_script' for dynamic content. The description implies usage in scenarios where elements load asynchronously, but lacks specific when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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