BlackLabel Tech Website MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds the output format (Markdown or stripped text) and the 40,000-character limit, which are useful behavioral details not in annotations. It doesn't describe error handling or authentication, but for a read-only tool with strong annotations, this is sufficient.

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?

One sentence with no filler. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes essential constraints (domain, format, character limit). Every word earns its place.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, output format options, and a limit. It doesn't mention potential errors or how the format is chosen, but given simplicity and strong annotations, it's reasonably complete. Could be improved by clarifying whether both formats are returned or one is selected.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It does add domain restriction ('blacklattec.com') and implies the url should point to a page. However, it doesn't explain the output format selection (Markdown vs stripped text) or any additional constraints on the URL beyond being a URI. It provides some semantic value but leaves ambiguity.

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?

Clear verb 'Read' + specific resource 'one https://blacklattec.com page' with output format and limit. Distinguishes from siblings (search_pages for searching, site_info for site metadata) by focusing on fetching a single page's content given a URL.

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?

Purpose is clear enough to imply usage: use when you have a specific URL and want page content. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use search_pages or site_info instead, or any prerequisites (e.g., must have a valid URL from the domain). No exclusions or alternative guidance, but the domain restriction and action give enough context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral specifics: it searches the sitemap, matches by URL path words, and returns URLs with a match score, which goes beyond annotations.

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. It states the action, domain, matching mechanism, and return format efficiently.

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?

The description covers the essential facts: domain (blacklabeltec.com), search method (sitemap), matching basis (URL path words), and output (URLs with score). It does not mention pagination or ordering, but given simple schema and rich annotations, this is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains query implicitly as 'words in their URL path', but provides no detail on limit (though schema gives default/max/min). The core parameter is covered, but limit is left to schema, which is self-explanatory.

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 finds pages on blacklabeltec.com by words in URL paths, and mentions it's a sitemap search returning URLs with match scores. It distinguishes from siblings (read_page for reading a page, site_info for site metadata) by focusing on search.

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 implies usage as a search tool but does not explicitly state when to use it over read_page or site_info, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. The context is clear enough to infer, but no explicit guidance is given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds modest context by revealing what the agent can expect to receive (links to sitemap, docs, contact, discovery documents), which describes the content type rather than deep behavioral details. No contradiction with annotations; the description adds some value but the annotations carry most of the burden.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the core subject ('What BlackLabel Tech is') before enumerating deliverables. It is compact with no filler. It loses a point only because the trailing phrase 'every discovery document' is slightly vague about scope, though this does not undermine usability.

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 zero-parameter, read-only info tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it tells the agent what the resource is and what links to expect. The only notable gap is the missing usage guidance relative to siblings, which is already penalized under usage_guidelines rather than completeness.

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, so the schema coverage is vacuously 100% and the description correctly omits parameter syntax details. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns, which is the only semantics an agent needs for a parameterless call. Baseline 4 for no-param tools applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource: it tells the agent what BlackLabel Tech (blacklabeltec.com) is and enumerates the concrete deliverables (links to sitemap, docs, contact, and discovery documents). This clearly distinguishes it from the siblings read_page and search_pages, which operate on individual pages rather than the overall site overview.

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 gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus read_page or search_pages. It never states that this is the entry point for site orientation before drilling into specific pages, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria or alternatives. The agent must infer the relationship to siblings entirely on its own.

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