Seo Api2 MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.