Visibly AI — SEO MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose all behavioral traits. Only mentions 'Free - no API key required', but omits read-only status, rate limits, side effects, or other important behaviors. Lacks depth.

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 sentences, each with clear purpose. The most important information (purpose and free nature) is front-loaded. Slightly verbose with three separate sentences, but overall efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and a key fact. However, it omits what 'common issues' means, the output format, and any limitations, leaving some ambiguity.

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 100%, but the description does not add meaningful context beyond the schema's 'URL to analyze'. No clarification on URL format, acceptable schemes, or examples, so it adds minimal value.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'analyze' and resource 'URL', and elaborates on what it checks (length, structure, common issues). Distinguishes from siblings like seo_checklist and seo_guidance, which are broader or different.

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?

Mentions 'Free - no API key required' as a usage note, but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like seo_checklist or seo_guidance. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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 provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that processing happens locally (no external API calls) and requires no authentication ('without an API key'), which are useful behavioral traits. It does not detail the return format or potential limitations, but for a simple classification tool, the core behavior is transparent.

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 exceptionally concise at two sentences, immediately stating the tool's purpose and key traits. Every word adds value—'locally' and 'free without API key' are substantive, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 has 5 parameters (4 optional), no output schema, and no annotations, the two-sentence description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how to use the optional parameters or what the classification output looks like, leaving a significant gap for an agent attempting to invoke the tool effectively.

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 only 20% (only 'keywords' is described), yet the description does not compensate by explaining the optional parameters such as 'brand_name', 'competitors', 'brand_variations', or 'product_keywords'. The high-level list of classification dimensions (intent, funnel stage, brand type, topic) gives some context but does not clarify how these parameters influence classification, leaving them under-specified.

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's function: 'Classify keywords locally by intent, funnel stage, brand type, and topic.' This uses a specific verb (classify), identifies the resource (keywords), and lists the classification dimensions, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on URL structure, guidelines, and SEO guidance.

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 clear context by noting it operates 'locally' and is 'Free and available without an API key,' implying it is a self-contained, no-cost option. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, this contextual guidance is sufficient for an agent to infer its suitability for offline, keyless keyword classification.

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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what the tool returns, how the 'category' parameter affects behavior, or what happens if no category is provided. The default 'list' behavior is not mentioned, leaving the agent guessing.

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 very brief and front-loaded, but the second sentence 'Free.' is unnecessary and does not contribute to tool selection. Despite that, it is not verbose and gets the core message across quickly.

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 is simple with one optional parameter, the description is still incomplete because it fails to explain the default category behavior and valid inputs. The lack of output schema and insufficient parameter semantics make it hard for an agent to use correctly without further assumptions.

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 schema has one parameter 'category' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaningful semantics. It only repeats 'by category' without explaining valid values, the default 'list', or expected return format. This is a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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's function: retrieving official Google Search developer guidelines. It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'official Google Search developer guidelines', and the scope 'by category', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_guidance or seo_checklist.

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 the sibling tools. It only says 'Free', which is a feature, not usage context. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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 behavioral burden. It adds useful context (free, no API key required, skill contents include triggers/credits/quality gates), which is genuine value beyond structured fields. But it never states that this is a read-only lookup or describes the response shape, so for a no-annotation tool the safety/side-effect profile is only implied.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the middle sentence is a long, skill-specific workflow about writing an article toward NSS 70/80, saving, and editor links. That content describes one skill's output rather than how to invoke this tool, so it is verbose relative to what an agent needs to call get_skill.

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 single-parameter catalog lookup with no output schema, the description is adequate: it explains what a skill contains and how to list them. It never indicates the return format (e.g., markdown instructions vs. structured JSON), which is the main gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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% and the single 'name' parameter is already documented with an example ('seo-audit') and the 'list' sentinel in the schema itself. The description mostly repeats that ('list' for all skills) and adds a second example value, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve an 'SEO workflow skill' containing methodology, triggers, credits, and quality gates from the seo_skills catalog. That is far more concrete than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes this retrieval tool from nearby siblings like get_google_guidelines or seo_guidance, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

It gives concrete routing guidance: use name='content-nss-optimize' for a specific optimizing workflow, and name='list' to enumerate all skills. That tells the agent how to pick a value in the common cases. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or how it differs from sibling guidance tools.

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 full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (no API key) but omits other behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or output format. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 succinct sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and usage condition. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should ideally describe the return format or any limitations. It does not, so completeness is minimal but acceptable for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially covered. The description adds no parameter information since none exist; baseline 4 is appropriate per guidelines.

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 ('List') and the resource ('available countries/locations') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_url_structure' and 'get_auth_status', none of which list locations.

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 explicitly states 'Free - no API key required', which is a key usage condition. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but for a simple list tool with no parameters, this is sufficient 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?

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior (free, no API key), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or if any side effects occur. It adds some value but not comprehensive 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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no fluff, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers input options and access, but does not describe the output format or content of the checklist, leaving some ambiguity.

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 100% and both parameters have enums with descriptions. The description merely restates the available options without adding new meaning, so baseline score of 3 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 clearly states 'Get an SEO checklist' with specific verb and resource. It lists available types, but does not differentiate from sibling tool 'seo_guidance', which may overlap. Hence not a 5.

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 mentions it is free and requires no API key, providing clear usage context. However, it does not give explicit when-not or alternative recommendations, stopping short of a 5.

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 provided. Description discloses non-destructive nature and no authentication needed, but doesn't detail return format or result behavior. Adequate for an informational read-only tool.

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 clear sentences, front-loaded with verb and topic list. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (one required param, no output schema), the description is complete: lists topics, explains usage, notes free and no API key.

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 covers 100% of parameter. Description adds value by enumerating valid topic values and emphasizing 'list' to get all topics, which goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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?

Description clearly states it provides SEO best practices on a topic, lists 10 specific topics, and explains the special 'list' value. Differentiates from siblings like analyze_url_structure and seo_checklist.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: get SEO best practices on a topic, use 'list' for all, free and no API key. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is sufficient for simple tool.

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