Seo Api2 MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes focused on SEO and web analysis tasks, with minimal overlap. However, there are a few potential confusion points: 'domain_age_checker' and 'domain_age_checker_depreciated' appear to be duplicates with different spellings, and 'whois_domain_lookup' and 'whois_domain_lookup_deprecated' serve the same function. Additionally, 'top_cms_report' and 'top_web_technologies_report' might overlap in covering CMS technologies.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming follows a mostly consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive names, but there are notable inconsistencies. 'serp_api' breaks the pattern by using an acronym without underscores, and 'top_cms_report' and similar report tools have verbose descriptions in their names that deviate from the standard format. The presence of deprecated versions with '_deprecated' and '_depreciated' (misspelled) adds inconsistency.
Tool Count2/5
With 34 tools, the count is excessive for an SEO-focused server, leading to potential bloat and confusion. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple report tools, duplicate checkers) without losing functionality. A more streamlined set of 10-20 tools would better serve the domain, making this borderline heavy and inefficient for agent use.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for SEO and web analysis, including keyword research, technical SEO checks, domain analysis, and reporting. However, there are minor gaps: no tools for content analysis (e.g., readability scores) or social media metrics, and the inclusion of unrelated tools like 'credit_card_generator' and 'credit_card_validator' detracts from the SEO focus, suggesting scope creep.
Average 1.8/5 across 34 of 34 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only calculation, whether it makes external API calls, what format the output takes, or any behavioral characteristics. The description is completely silent on how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an agent understand or use the tool. Every word should earn its place, but here the words provide no operational value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a calculation tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool calculates, what the output represents, or how the parameters interact. Given the complexity of financial calculations and the lack of annotations, this description provides insufficient context for proper tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions (impressions, CTR, CPC), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds zero additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or the calculation formula.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Adsense Calculator' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what it actually does. It doesn't mention any verb or action, nor does it indicate what resource it operates on or what calculation it performs. This provides no meaningful information beyond what's already in the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no contextual cues, no mention of prerequisites, and no differentiation from the 30+ sibling tools listed. The agent would have no idea when this calculator is appropriate versus other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description 'ASN Checker' reveals nothing about what the tool actually does, what it returns, whether it makes network calls, what permissions it requires, or any behavioral characteristics. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how this tool behaves when invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to convey any meaningful information about the tool's purpose or behavior. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide any useful guidance to an agent trying to understand when and how to use this tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description 'ASN Checker' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what ASN checking entails, what information is returned, or how this tool differs from other network-related checking tools in the server. The agent cannot determine what this tool does or when to use it based on this minimal description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'ip' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'ASN Checker' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It provides no verb or resource specification, and doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings that also perform various checking/analysis functions. A user or agent cannot determine what this tool actually accomplishes from this description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools performing various checking functions (DNS checker, SSL checker, hosting checker, etc.), there's no indication of what specific problem this tool addresses or what distinguishes it from other checking tools in the server.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Broken Links Finder' gives no indication of what the tool actually does operationally—whether it scans a single page or entire site, returns structured data or raw text, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what constitutes a 'broken' link. This leaves critical behavioral traits completely unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely concise (two words), this is a case of under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to convey essential information, making it inefficient for its purpose. Every word should earn its place, but here the words provide almost no value beyond the tool name itself.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's apparent complexity (finding broken links typically involves web crawling and HTTP status checks), no annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description, this is severely incomplete. The description fails to explain what the tool returns, how it operates, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('url' and 'page') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the 'url' parameter's purpose or how 'page' affects pagination. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Broken Links Finder' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful information about what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what action is performed (e.g., 'find', 'scan', 'detect') or what resource is involved (e.g., 'on a webpage', 'in a website'). No distinction from sibling tools is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools like 'link_analyzer' or 'redirect_checker' that might have overlapping functionality. Users must guess when this specific tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this generates real or test data, what format the output takes, any rate limits, security implications, or ethical considerations for credit card generation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide essential information that would help an AI agent understand and use the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what the output format will be, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (card_type and count). The description adds no additional meaning about what card types are supported, what 'count' represents, or any parameter constraints beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Credit Card Generator' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs. It doesn't indicate whether it generates valid credit card numbers, test data, or something else, nor does it distinguish this tool from its sibling 'credit_card_validator'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 alternatives like 'credit_card_validator' or other data generation tools. There's no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what validation rules it applies, what happens with invalid inputs, or what the output format might be. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load essential information and fails to communicate the tool's function beyond its name. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single phrase doesn't provide meaningful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a validation tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what validation occurs, what constitutes success/failure, what the tool returns, or how to interpret results. Given the complexity of credit card validation and lack of structured data, this description fails to provide necessary context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with examples. The description adds no additional meaning about what 'ccnumber' represents beyond being a credit card number or what 'card_type' might be used for. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage despite the description adding no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Credit Card Validator' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs. It doesn't mention validation logic, what constitutes valid/invalid cards, or what resource it operates on. Compared to sibling tools like 'credit_card_generator' which clearly indicates generation, this description fails to distinguish its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'credit_card_generator'. There's no indication of whether this validates format, Luhn algorithm, issuer identification, or other aspects of credit cards.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Domain Age Checker' gives no information about what the tool actually does (e.g., returns creation date, calculates age in years), how it works, what data sources it uses, error handling, or performance characteristics. It's completely opaque about behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to communicate essential information about the tool's purpose and usage. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide meaningful guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides only a tautological name restatement, this is completely inadequate. The description fails to explain what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, or when to choose it over alternatives. This is insufficient for any meaningful agent interaction.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter description for 'domain'. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Domain Age Checker' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs. It doesn't indicate whether it retrieves, calculates, estimates, or verifies domain age, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'whois_domain_lookup' or 'domain_age_checker_depreciated'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 alternatives. With multiple domain-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'whois_domain_lookup', 'dns_records_checker'), there's no indication of this tool's specific use case, prerequisites, or limitations compared to others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what kind of data it returns, whether it makes external API calls, or any behavioral characteristics. The 'depreciated' in the tool name suggests it might be outdated or replaced, but the description doesn't explain this behavioral implication. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this complete lack of behavioral information is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to communicate essential information about the tool's purpose and usage. Every sentence (or in this case, word) should earn its place, but 'Domain Age Checker' doesn't provide meaningful value beyond the tool name itself. This is brevity at the expense of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to provide the contextual completeness needed for effective tool use. The description doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it differs from the non-deprecated version, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool with 'depreciated' in its name (suggesting important behavioral context) and no structured metadata, this minimal description is completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'domain_name' that has a clear description in the schema ('Example value: google.com'). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Domain Age Checker' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful information about what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what action is performed (e.g., 'check', 'retrieve', 'calculate') or what resource is involved beyond the obvious domain reference. This provides no differentiation from sibling tools like 'whois_domain_lookup' or 'domain_age_checker' (non-deprecated version).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of what distinguishes this deprecated version from the non-deprecated 'domain_age_checker' sibling tool, nor any indication of when this tool might be appropriate versus other domain-related tools like 'whois_domain_lookup' or 'dns_records_checker'. The description offers zero contextual guidance for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers no information about what the tool does, its effects, permissions, rate limits, or output format. This leaves the agent completely uninformed about how the tool behaves or what to expect from its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with only two words, the description is under-specified and fails to convey essential information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity; here, the brevity results in a lack of useful content, making it inefficient for the agent's understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity is unknown but likely involves network data, with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what ISP information is checked, the return values, or any behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter 'ip', with an example provided. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameter without needing compensation from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'ISP Checker' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs or what resource it operates on. It doesn't indicate whether it checks, retrieves, analyzes, or validates ISP information, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'asn_checker' or 'ip_geolocation_checker' that might handle related IP data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess its applicability among many sibling tools that process IPs or domains, such as 'ip_geolocation_checker' or 'whois_domain_lookup'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what kind of data it returns, whether it has rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is completely silent on behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't provide enough information to be useful, failing to front-load essential purpose or usage information. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide meaningful value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or even what it fundamentally does. For a tool that presumably checks keyword rankings (inferred from name only), this minimal description fails to provide the necessary context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Keyword Rank Checker' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what the tool actually does. It provides no verb or specific action, no indication of what resource it operates on, and no differentiation from sibling tools like 'serp_api' or 'keywords_suggestion_tool' that might have related functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, nor does it reference any sibling tools for comparison. This leaves the agent with no usage context beyond what can be inferred from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Link Analyzer' reveals nothing about the tool's behavior—whether it's read-only or mutative, what permissions are needed, what it returns, or any side effects like rate limits. This leaves the agent with no understanding of how the tool operates beyond its name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to convey essential information, making it inefficient for the agent's understanding. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the minimal content doesn't serve its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool's name among many web analysis siblings, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context on what the tool does, how it behaves, or what it returns, leaving the agent unable to use it effectively without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'url', with an example provided. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., it doesn't clarify URL formats, constraints, or analysis scope). Since the schema fully covers the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Link Analyzer' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs or what resource it analyzes. It provides no verb or clear purpose, failing to distinguish this tool from its many siblings that also analyze various web properties (e.g., broken_links_finder, meta_tags_analyzer, redirect_checker).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 30+ sibling tools focused on web analysis (like broken_links_finder, meta_tags_analyzer, redirect_checker), there is no indication of what specific aspect of links this tool analyzes or when it should be preferred over other tools in the server.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Name Servers Checker' offers no information on what the tool does operationally—whether it's a read-only lookup, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior and safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with just two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded essential details like the tool's action or purpose, failing to use its brevity to convey useful information, which compromises its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely complexity (checking name servers involves DNS queries), no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, this is highly incomplete. The agent cannot infer what the tool returns, how it behaves, or when to use it, making the description inadequate for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'domain' parameter clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as domain format constraints or examples. However, with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Name Servers Checker' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs. It doesn't indicate whether it retrieves, validates, analyzes, or compares name servers, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'dns_records_checker' or 'whois_domain_lookup' that might handle related DNS functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'dns_records_checker' and 'whois_domain_lookup' available, the description fails to specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool's application, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'SSL Checker' reveals nothing about what the tool actually does operationally - whether it makes external requests, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data or raw output, or what happens when invoked. For a tool that presumably interacts with external SSL infrastructure, this complete lack of behavioral information is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful information about the tool's function, making it inefficient for an AI agent. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide actionable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely complexity (checking SSL certificates involves multiple technical aspects), the absence of annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description, this is severely incomplete. The description fails to explain what the tool returns, what aspects of SSL it examines, or how to interpret results. For a technical checking tool, this minimal description is completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter 'domain' and example value. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Since schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate or add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SSL Checker' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what it actually does. It doesn't indicate what aspect of SSL is being checked (certificate validity, expiration, configuration, etc.) or what action the tool performs. No verb is present to distinguish this from its many sibling tools that also perform various domain/website checks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools performing various domain-related checks (DNS records, HTTP headers, hosting, etc.), there's no indication whether this should be used for SSL certificate validation, security assessment, or other purposes. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only lookup, whether it makes external network calls, what format results return, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool that presumably queries DNS systems, this lack of behavioral information is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description doesn't front-load essential information and fails to use its limited space to convey any meaningful guidance. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single 'sentence' provides almost no value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (DNS querying with two parameters), absence of annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool returns, how results are structured, error handling, or operational characteristics. For a tool that likely makes network calls to external DNS servers, this minimal description leaves the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'DNS Records Checker' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs. It doesn't indicate whether it retrieves, validates, analyzes, or modifies DNS records. While the name implies checking, the description adds no clarity about the specific verb or resource scope beyond what the name already suggests.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools like 'name_servers_checker' or 'domain_to_ip' that might handle related DNS functionality. The agent receives zero usage direction from this description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Domain to IP' reveals nothing about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it performs a DNS lookup, returns IPv4/IPv6 addresses, handles multiple IPs, includes timing information, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what format the output takes. The description is completely inadequate for understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with only three words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to convey necessary information and doesn't follow the principle that 'every sentence should earn its place' - in this case, the description doesn't even form a complete sentence that provides meaningful guidance to an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides almost no information, this is completely inadequate for a tool that presumably performs network operations. The description fails to explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, when to use it, or any operational characteristics. For a tool that likely involves external network calls and DNS resolution, this level of documentation is dangerously insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single 'url' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds zero information about parameters beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema coverage and no parameters mentioned in the description, this meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Domain to IP' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying the action. It doesn't clearly state what the tool does (e.g., 'Resolves a domain name to its corresponding IP address' or 'Performs DNS lookup to find IP addresses for a given domain'). While the name implies conversion, the description adds no meaningful clarification beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that might overlap (dns_records_checker, whois_domain_lookup, etc.), but the description offers no context about when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives. No prerequisites, limitations, or use cases are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Hosting Checker' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, whether it makes external requests, what rate limits apply, or what kind of output to expect. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the vague name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load important information and fails to communicate the tool's purpose in a meaningful way. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide sufficient value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description, this tool definition is severely incomplete. The description fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what results it returns. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide comprehensive context, which it completely fails to do.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'url' parameter, which has a clear description with an example. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Hosting Checker' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what it actually does. It doesn't mention what aspect of hosting is checked (provider, performance, configuration, etc.) or what resource is examined. While the input schema suggests it checks URLs, the description itself provides no meaningful information about the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools that perform various checks (DNS, SSL, headers, etc.), there's no indication whether this tool complements or overlaps with them. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description 'IP Geolocation Checker' reveals nothing about how the tool behaves - it doesn't mention whether it's a read-only lookup, what data sources it uses, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load essential information and fails to provide any meaningful content. Every word should earn its place, but here the words merely repeat the tool name without adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. For a geolocation tool that presumably returns location data, the description should explain what information is returned, any limitations, data sources, or accuracy considerations. The current description provides none of this essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter 'ip' documented as requiring an IP address with an example. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the schema does the work, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'IP Geolocation Checker' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what the tool actually does. It doesn't mention the action (e.g., 'look up', 'retrieve', 'check') or what information is returned (e.g., location data, country, coordinates). While it identifies the resource (IP geolocation), it lacks a specific verb and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'asn_checker' or 'isp_checker' that might also work with IP addresses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention any specific use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'asn_checker' or 'isp_checker' that might handle related IP information. There's no indication of when this tool is appropriate or when other tools might be better suited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it makes external requests, what the output format might be, or any performance characteristics. No behavioral traits are described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load essential information and fails to provide any meaningful content that would help an agent understand or use the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what keyword density checking entails, what the tool returns, or how it operates, leaving critical gaps in understanding for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'url' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Keyword Density Checker' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what it actually does. It doesn't describe the action (analyzes? calculates? extracts?) or the resource (web page content? text input?), nor does it differentiate from siblings like 'keyword_rank_checker' or 'keywords_suggestion_tool'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it makes external API calls, what kind of suggestions it provides, or any behavioral characteristics. The description provides zero information about how the tool behaves beyond its name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't contain enough information to be useful, so its brevity is a liability rather than a virtue. A truly concise description would still convey essential information efficiently, but this fails to do so.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description, the contextual completeness is severely lacking. The description doesn't explain what the tool returns, how suggestions are generated, what domain it operates in (SEO? advertising? content creation?), or any other contextual information needed to understand and use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'query' documented as 'Example value: laptop'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps, but it also doesn't add any value regarding parameter meaning or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Keywords Suggestion Tool' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs or what resource it operates on. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings (like keyword_density_checker or keyword_rank_checker) that also deal with keywords. The description lacks a clear verb-resource combination that would explain what this tool actually does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple keyword-related tools in the sibling list (keyword_density_checker, keyword_rank_checker), there's no indication of what makes this 'suggestion' tool different or when it should be preferred over those other options. The description offers no context about appropriate use cases or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it makes external HTTP requests, what format the analysis returns, or any rate limits. The single word 'Analyzer' provides no meaningful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with only two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to convey essential information that would help an agent use the tool correctly. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase fails to provide meaningful guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and operating in a domain with many similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'analyzing' entails, what specific meta tags are examined, what format results are returned in, or how this differs from related tools. The description fails to provide the contextual completeness needed for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% with a single 'url' parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but unenhanced parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Meta Tags Analyzer' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what it actually does. It doesn't provide a clear verb-action (analyzes? extracts? validates?) or indicate what resource it operates on (HTML meta tags? social media tags?). While it hints at analyzing meta tags, this is too vague for effective tool selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like 'open_graph_checker', 'link_analyzer', and 'keyword_density_checker' that might overlap with meta tag analysis, the agent receives no help in distinguishing appropriate use cases or understanding this tool's specific domain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Page Size Checker' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, if it makes network requests, what permissions might be needed, or what the output looks like. For a tool that likely fetches web pages, this lack of transparency about side effects, rate limits, or error handling is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While 'Page Size Checker' is brief, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The two-word description fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient rather than streamlined. A truly concise description would front-load critical details without wasting words, but here the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely complexity (involving web requests and size calculations), the absence of annotations and output schema, and the minimal description, this is highly incomplete. The description doesn't explain what 'page size' means, how it's measured, what the return values are, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with one parameter but potentially significant implementation details, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter clearly documented as expecting a URL like 'https://google.com'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, but since the schema fully covers the single parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No compensation is needed, but no extra value is provided either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Page Size Checker' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what it actually does. It doesn't clarify whether it checks page size in bytes, DOM elements, or some other metric, nor does it mention what resource it operates on (e.g., web pages). While it vaguely suggests measuring something about pages, it lacks the specific verb+resource clarity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'broken_links_finder' or 'meta_tags_analyzer'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference any sibling tools for comparison. Given the many sibling tools focused on web analysis (e.g., 'broken_links_finder', 'ssl_checker'), this omission leaves the agent with no basis for selecting this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what kind of output to expect, whether it makes network requests, what permissions might be needed, or any rate limits. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the vague name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load essential information or structure any meaningful content. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide sufficient value to justify even their minimal presence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and operating in a domain with many similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it differs from other web analysis tools, what kind of redirect information it provides, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to provide the minimal context needed for effective tool selection and use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter 'url' documented as 'Example value: example.com'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Redirect Checker' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without providing any meaningful elaboration. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., checks HTTP redirect chains, identifies redirect loops, analyzes redirect status codes) or what resource it operates on. While the name suggests it checks redirects, the description adds no value beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools related to web analysis (like broken_links_finder, get_http_headers, dns_records_checker), there's no indication of what specific redirect-related problem this tool addresses or when it should be preferred over other tools that might also reveal redirect information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description 'SERP API' reveals nothing about what the tool actually does, how it behaves, what it returns, whether it makes external API calls, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is completely inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to communicate essential information about the tool's purpose or behavior. Every word should earn its place, but here the minimal text fails to provide the necessary context for the tool to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. The agent needs to understand what this SERP tool does, what it returns, and how it differs from other keyword/search-related tools on the server. The current description provides none of this essential context, making it impossible for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters having example values in their descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting with good documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description contributes zero additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SERP API' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what the tool actually does. It doesn't mention any verb or resource, nor does it distinguish this tool from its many siblings. While the name suggests it relates to search engine results pages, the description provides no functional information about what the tool accomplishes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 33 sibling tools on the server, including several keyword-related tools like 'keyword_rank_checker' and 'keywords_suggestion_tool', the lack of any usage context leaves the agent with no way to determine when this specific SERP tool is appropriate versus other available options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, what data is returned, or potential errors. The description offers no insight beyond the basic action implied by the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks front-loaded critical information and fails to convey essential details about the tool's purpose or usage, making it ineffective despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a domain lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what Whois data is returned, how results are formatted, potential limitations, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single 'domain' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter, such as format requirements (e.g., TLD inclusion) or examples beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Whois Domain Lookup' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It mentions the action ('lookup') and resource ('domain') but lacks specificity about what Whois data is retrieved or how it differs from similar tools like 'domain_age_checker' or 'whois_domain_lookup_deprecated'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 alternatives. With multiple domain-related sibling tools (e.g., domain_age_checker, dns_records_checker, whois_domain_lookup_deprecated), there is no indication of when this specific Whois lookup is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or when other tools might be better suited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what kind of output to expect, whether it makes external requests, potential rate limits, or any behavioral characteristics. The description is completely silent on all behavioral aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load critical information and fails to provide any meaningful content. Every word should earn its place, but this description provides essentially zero value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides minimal information, the description is completely inadequate. For a tool that presumably analyzes WordPress sites, the description should explain what it returns, how it works, and what value it provides. The current description fails to provide any meaningful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage for the single 'url' parameter. Since schema_description_coverage is high (100%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the complete schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'WordPress Theme Detector' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what it actually does. It doesn't clarify whether this detects themes on a WordPress site, identifies theme details, or performs some other function. While the name suggests theme detection, the description adds no meaningful clarification beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context for usage, doesn't reference sibling tools (like 'top_wp_themes_report' which might be related), and gives no indication of prerequisites or appropriate scenarios for invoking this detector.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Open Graph Checker' implies a read-only analysis tool, but it doesn't specify whether it performs HTTP requests, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description is too terse to be helpful—it doesn't front-load key information or use its limited space to clarify the tool's function. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide meaningful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely complexity (analyzing Open Graph Protocol tags), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or its use cases. For a tool that presumably makes network requests and returns structured data about meta tags, this description leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with the 'url' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also adds no value regarding parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Open Graph Checker' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what it actually does. It doesn't mention what 'Open Graph' refers to (likely Open Graph Protocol meta tags for social media sharing) or what 'checking' entails (validation, extraction, analysis). Compared to sibling tools like 'meta_tags_analyzer' or 'serp_api', it fails to distinguish its specific purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention context (e.g., for social media optimization, SEO analysis), prerequisites, or when to choose it over similar tools like 'meta_tags_analyzer' which might analyze broader meta tags. There's no explicit or implied usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it offers no information about what the tool does operationally—whether it fetches data, analyzes websites, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns structured data. The description is too minimal to convey any behavioral traits, making it inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is brief, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single phrase ('Top Website Languages Report') fails to convey essential information, making it inefficient. It lacks front-loaded clarity and doesn't earn its place with meaningful content, resulting in poor structure despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (implied by its name among analytics-focused siblings) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the report contains, how it's generated, or what the output looks like, leaving critical gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively in context with its siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, and the baseline for such cases is 4. However, it doesn't add any parameter-related context beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Top Website Languages Report' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb and doesn't clarify what the tool actually does (e.g., generates, retrieves, analyzes). While it mentions 'report,' the purpose remains vague compared to sibling tools like 'top_cms_report' or 'top_web_technologies_report' which have similar naming patterns but equally unclear descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate it from sibling tools like 'top_web_technologies_report' or 'top_cms_report' that might serve related purposes. This leaves the agent with no information to make an informed selection among similar-sounding tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool is deprecated without explaining what that means (e.g., if it's unreliable, unsupported, or replaced). It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or any behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single phrase, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes the opportunity to add value, such as explaining deprecation or usage, making it not front-loaded with useful information. It earns a middle score for brevity but lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a deprecated tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does, why it's deprecated, what to use instead, or any behavioral context. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, providing a clear example. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already documents. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3, as the description does not need to compensate but also adds no extra meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Whois Domain Lookup (Deprecated)' restates the tool name with the addition of '(Deprecated)', making it a tautology. It does not specify what the tool does beyond the name, nor does it distinguish from its sibling 'whois_domain_lookup' (without 'deprecated'), leaving the purpose vague and unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It does not explain why it is deprecated or suggest using the non-deprecated sibling 'whois_domain_lookup', nor does it mention any context or exclusions for its use, offering minimal usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get HTTP Headers' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it makes an actual HTTP request, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output format might be. This leaves the agent with minimal actionable information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted text. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail. Every word earns its place by stating the core action, but it could benefit from additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (involving HTTP operations), lack of annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., header key-value pairs), how it behaves (e.g., makes a GET request), or any limitations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter 'url', with an example provided. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what the URL is used for (e.g., to fetch headers from that endpoint) or any constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameter without extra help from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get HTTP Headers' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'HTTP Headers', but doesn't clarify what this actually means operationally (e.g., retrieving headers from a web request to a URL). While it distinguishes from most siblings (which focus on domains, SEO, etc.), it doesn't differentiate from potential similar tools like 'meta_tags_analyzer' or 'redirect_checker' that might also involve HTTP interactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for debugging web requests, checking server responses, or other use cases, nor does it reference sibling tools that might overlap in functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a 'report' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what data sources it uses, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. The description lacks essential behavioral details needed for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single phrase, which is concise but under-specified. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to provide sufficient context or front-load critical information, making it less helpful than a more informative yet still brief description would be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the report contains, its format, or how it's generated. For a reporting tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more context about the output and behavior to be adequately helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional parameter information is required or provided, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Top Top-Level Domains Report' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'top_tld_report' with minimal variation. It indicates the tool generates a report about top-level domains but doesn't specify what action it performs (e.g., 'generate', 'retrieve', 'analyze') or what makes it distinct from sibling reporting tools like 'top_cms_report' or 'top_web_technologies_report'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 alternatives. There are multiple sibling reporting tools (e.g., 'top_cms_report', 'top_hosting_services_report'), but the description doesn't explain what context or goals would make this tool appropriate, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only lists categories (Programming Language, etc.) without disclosing behavioral traits like data source, update frequency, output format, or any constraints. It fails to explain what the report entails or how it behaves, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise phrase, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the core idea but lacks structure or elaboration, making it minimal yet insufficient for clarity, not earning a higher score due to its vagueness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (implied by generating a report) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the report contains, how it's generated, or any usage context, failing to compensate for the missing structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, but this is acceptable as there are no parameters to document, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Top Web Technologies (Programming Language, Web Servers, Databases, Frameworks, etc)' restates the tool name 'top_web_technologies_report' with added examples in parentheses, making it a tautology that doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'generate', 'fetch', 'analyze'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'top_cms_report' by scope but lacks a clear verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other 'top_*_report' siblings (e.g., 'top_cms_report', 'top_hosting_services_report'), or any context for its application. The description implies a focus on web technologies but offers no explicit usage instructions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Report', hinting at a read-only operation, but fails to specify what the report contains (e.g., data format, source), whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. This leaves key behavioral traits undefined for a tool that likely queries external data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single phrase, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded clarity (e.g., starting with a verb) and doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful context beyond the tool name. While brief, it fails to structure information effectively for understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely complexity (generating a report on WordPress themes), no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the report outputs (e.g., list of themes with metrics), data sources, or limitations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the lack of parameters without introducing confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Most using WP themes Report' is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'top_wp_themes_report' without specifying the action (e.g., 'generate' or 'retrieve') or clarifying what 'most using' means (e.g., by popularity, usage statistics). It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_theme_detector' by implying a report focus, but lacks a clear verb-resource structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain how it differs from sibling tools like 'top_cms_report' or 'top_web_technologies_report', or specify scenarios where this report is preferred (e.g., for WordPress-specific analytics). The description offers no context for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Latest Report', implying up-to-date data, but does not specify data sources, update frequency, or output format. It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is somewhat front-loaded but includes redundant phrasing ('Top, best and most popular'). It could be more concise by eliminating repetition, though it does not waste space on unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (report generation with no parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'details' are included, how the report is structured, or what the return values look like, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, warranting a baseline score of 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool provides 'Top, best and most popular Content Management Systems and details in the world (Latest Report)', which gives a general purpose but is vague about what specific details are included or how the ranking is determined. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on CMS rather than other topics like hosting or domains, but lacks specificity about the verb (e.g., 'retrieve', 'generate') and resource scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'top_hosting_services_report' or 'top_web_technologies_report'), leaving the agent to infer usage based on the topic alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Latest Report', implying up-to-date data, but doesn't specify data sources, update frequency, or output format. It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely fetches external data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is relatively concise but could be more structured. It front-loads the purpose but includes redundant adjectives ('Top, best and most popular'). It earns its place by stating the tool's function, but it lacks additional helpful details that would improve clarity without adding bulk.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool likely retrieves a report on hosting services with no parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' entail, the format of the report, or how the 'latest' aspect is ensured. With no annotations and no output schema, more context is needed to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool provides 'Top, best and most popular Hosting Services and details in the world (Latest Report)', which gives a general purpose of retrieving a report on hosting services. However, it's vague about what 'details' include and doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'top_cms_report' or 'top_web_technologies_report' beyond the subject matter. It uses multiple adjectives ('Top, best and most popular') which are somewhat redundant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools such as 'hosting_checker' or other 'top_*_report' tools. Users must infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what data is retrieved without disclosing behavioral traits such as data freshness, source reliability, rate limits, or output format. It mentions 'latest report' but doesn't clarify update frequency or access constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose in minimal text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a data retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what 'top websites' means (e.g., ranking criteria, number of results), the report's format, or how to interpret the output, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description adds value by specifying 'latest report', which provides context beyond the empty schema, earning a baseline score above the minimum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as retrieving 'top websites by traffic' from the 'latest report', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'top_cms_report' or 'top_hosting_services_report' beyond the traffic focus, missing explicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'serp_api' or other top reports, offering no usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bachai-seo-api2 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/bachai-seo-api2/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/bachai-seo-api2)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bachai-seo-api2 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/bachai-seo-api2/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/bachai-seo-api2)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/bachai-seo-api2'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server