Retrieve SimilarWeb traffic and engagement data for a specific domain to evaluate website performance.
Get SimilarWeb Web Info. Returns traffic and engagement data from SimilarWeb for a specific domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to fetch SimilarWeb data for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the return type ('traffic and engagement data') without details on authentication, rate limits, data format, or potential errors. The agent lacks essential behavioral context for safe invocation.
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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's primary action. However, the first sentence 'Get SimilarWeb Web Info.' is somewhat redundant with the tool name and could be merged for better conciseness.
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 simple tool (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks specifics about return data structure, units of traffic/engagement, or usage restrictions. It does not fully compensate for the missing output schema or annotations.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the only parameter (domain). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as domain format or example inputs. This fails to enhance the agent's understanding of parameter usage.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('Get') and resource ('SimilarWeb Web Info'), and specifies it returns 'traffic and engagement data' for a specific domain. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like similarweb_search, which likely handle broader searches or different queries.
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 implies usage when needing traffic/engagement data for a known domain, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.