Seo Api2 MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.