get_dataforseo_serp_naver_organic_fetchDescription of the fields for sending a request:
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | task identifier unique task identifier in our system in the UUID format you will be able to use it within 30 days to request the results of the task at any time |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Task identifier in UUID format"New value: +"task identifier unique task identifier in our system in the UUID format you will be able to use it within 30 days to request the results of the task at any time"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, but this tool's key trait is the 30-day result retention window and that it consumes a task id from a prior submit. The description says nothing about retrieval timing, expiry, or dependencies, leaving critical context only in the id field text.
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 placeholder sentence that conveys no actionable information. It is short but does not earn its place because it is empty of content rather than concise.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still fails to state that the tool fetches results for a Naver task id, what the results contain, or how it relates to sibling submit/fetch variants. The definition is not complete enough for reliable tool selection.
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%, so the schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter including UUID format and 30-day validity. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the baseline when schema coverage is complete.
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 is a generic meta-sentence ('Description of the fields for sending a request:') that never states what the tool does. Only the name/title conveys that it fetches Naver organic SERP results by task id, so the description itself is essentially a tautology/missing purpose.
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 guidance on when to use this vs siblings like get_dataforseo_serp_naver_organic_fetch_html/_regular or post_dataforseo_serp_naver_organic_submit. There is no indication that this is the retrieval step after submitting a Naver SERP task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.