PortBacklinks MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral context: results are limited to free/non-premium sources, pro guides are excluded, and the returned guide/template text is untrusted third-party content rather than instructions. It omits auth requirements and any rate/limit behavior, but the scope limits and the injection warning are meaningful disclosures.

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?

Three short sentences, each load-bearing: what you get, how to obtain the id, and the content-trust caveat. The payload is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the return; naming the four artifacts (URL, checklist, templates, guide) does that adequately, and the third-party-content warning covers a risk the structured fields cannot express. It could say more about response shape or failure modes for an unknown slug, but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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% on the single parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does by naming the accepted identifier forms (slug or id) and its provenance (from search_backlink_sources). It doesn't cover format constraints such as length or allowed characters, so it stops short of full compensation.

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 (Get) and resource (details for one source) and enumerates exactly what is returned: submission URL, checklist, templates, and guide. It also scopes itself to free, non-premium sources, which distinguishes it from a generic fetch and from the sibling search 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?

Tells the agent where the required identifier comes from ('Pass the slug or id from search_backlink_sources'), establishing the correct call order, and gives an exclusion ('Pro guides are not returned'). It does not state any full when-not-to-use case or alternative tool, so it falls short of the top band.

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 does disclose meaningful scope traits: only free sources are returned, paid/Pro are never returned, and guide text is excluded. However it says nothing about permissions, pagination, result count, or rate limits for this 6-param search.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The most important constraint (free-only results) comes first, and each sentence adds a distinct scope fact.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage mean an agent must guess at all six parameter semantics and the return shape. The description covers result scope but leaves the tool substantially underspecified for invocation.

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 compensate for six undocumented parameters (cost, lang, link, type, limit, query). It only gestures at 'cost' via 'free, non-premium' and leaves the remaining five parameters with no added meaning. Worse, the cost enum includes 'paid' even though the description says paid sources are never returned.

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 ('Search') and resource ('backlink sources') and scopes it to free, non-premium sources. It does not name the sibling get_source_details, so sibling differentiation is only implicit through scope wording.

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 exclusion of paid/Pro sources implies when this tool is the right one (free-source lookups only), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-use-something-else guidance, and no reference to get_source_details for drill-down.

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