Search a domain or keyword to find matching websites, companies, and apps on the App Store and Google Play.
Search SimilarWeb Info. Looks up a domain or keyword on SimilarWeb and returns the matching websites, companies (name, domain and logo) and apps on the App Store and Google Play.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Domain or keyword to search |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return payload (websites, company name/domain/logo, store apps), which is genuinely useful given the absence of an output schema. However it says nothing about result limits, pagination, or whether the call is a pure read — relevant behavior for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the return shape. The opening 'Search SimilarWeb Info' slightly restates the tool name, but the second sentence is dense and earns its place, so overall it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one required parameter, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials and describes the return entities. It stops short of anything about result volume, pagination, or ranking, which leaves a small gap for an agent planning a query.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents 'q'. The description's 'domain or keyword' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb (search/look up) plus the resource (a domain or keyword on SimilarWeb) and enumerates what comes back — matching websites, companies with name/domain/logo, and App Store/Google Play apps. It is clear enough to distinguish from a generic search, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling similarweb_web.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it is for resolving a domain/keyword into entities, but there is no when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling similarweb_web as an alternative for web-traffic data. It is adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.