mcp-seo-audit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fetch a page and analyze' but does not specify details like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, what happens if the URL is invalid, or the format of the analysis results. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by a concise 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place, providing essential information without waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (SEO analysis with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context. With no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it meets the baseline but has clear gaps.

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 meaning beyond the input schema by specifying that the 'url' parameter should be a 'Full page URL'. The schema has 0% description coverage (only a title 'Url'), so this clarification is valuable. However, it does not elaborate on URL format requirements or constraints, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 purpose: 'Fetch a page and analyze on-page SEO signals, structured data, and indexability hints.' It uses specific verbs ('fetch', 'analyze') and resources ('page', 'SEO signals'), making the function evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'inspect_url' or 'run_lighthouse_audit', which might have overlapping functionality, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as comparing it to 'inspect_url' for basic checks or 'run_lighthouse_audit' for performance analysis. Without such information, the agent lacks clear direction on tool selection.

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