BlackLabel Tech Website MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: output can be Markdown (via Cloudflare Markdown for Agents) or stripped text, and output is capped at 40,000 characters. It omits error behavior, rate limits, and how the format is selected, so it falls short of full transparency.

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 with no filler; the scope ('one page'), source, format options, and size limit all earn their 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 simple single-parameter fetch with no output schema, the description covers purpose, format, and the size cap, so an agent knows what it gets back. Gaps remain around format selection and invalid-URL handling, but the core is complete.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 0%, so the schema gives the agent nothing. The description implies the URL should be a blacklabeltec.com page, adding some domain context, but it never clarifies whether non-domain URLs are rejected or how the Markdown vs stripped-text choice is expressed.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (one page) with a clear scope limitation ('one ... page'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling search_pages. It doesn't name the sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'read one page' versus the sibling search tool; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent can infer the single-page intent, but nothing guides it on choosing format or handling retrieval failures.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important limitation that matching is against URL path text from the sitemap, not page content, plus the return shape (URLs with a match score). It omits ranking behavior, result caps, and whether the sitemap is complete or refreshed.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core mechanism and return format front-loaded. Every clause carries 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 simple read-only sitemap search with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, matching mechanism, and return shape adequately. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit parameter and result-count behavior.

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% for two parameters. The description usefully clarifies that "query" means words matched against the URL path, which the bare string type does not convey, but it says nothing about "limit" (default 20, max 50).

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?

States a specific verb ("Find"), resource ("pages on blacklabeltec.com") and mechanism ("by words in their URL path (sitemap search)"). This is clearly distinguishable in practice from read_page and site_info, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to locate pages by URL keywords rather than to fetch content. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to read_page for content retrieval.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the tool returns (links to sitemap, docs, contact, discovery documents), which is meaningful content disclosure, but it never states that the operation is a side-effect-free read or what the response shape looks like.

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 with no filler, sized exactly to the tool's trivial surface.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema and no parameters, the description supplies most of what an agent needs: what the tool is and roughly what it returns. A brief note on return format or intended first-call positioning would close the remaining gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a parameterless tool 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 resource (BlackLabel Tech's site information) and enumerates the concrete contents returned: sitemap, docs, contact and discovery documents. It implicitly distinguishes itself from read_page and search_pages by being a static site-level overview rather than page retrieval, though it never says so explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus the siblings read_page and search_pages, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is a first-look orientation call.

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