mcp-seo-audit

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. It states the action ('Add a site') but doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, if the site becomes immediately available for analysis, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details in a labeled 'Args' section. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the two-sentence format is slightly more verbose than a single integrated sentence might be.

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 tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are important for an agent to invoke this correctly in practice.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'site_url' by providing examples (e.g., 'https://example.com or sc-domain:example.com'), which clarifies format beyond the schema's basic string type. With 0% schema description coverage, this effectively compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'site to your Search Console properties', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'submit_sitemap' or 'list_properties', which could involve similar domain operations.

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 like 'list_properties' (for viewing existing sites) or 'delete_site'. It mentions no prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for adding a site, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.