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 mentions 'validate with GET requests' for sampled URLs, hinting at network activity, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'analyze' entails (e.g., parsing, reporting). This is a significant gap for a tool that performs external requests.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand 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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description does an adequate job explaining inputs but lacks behavioral context (e.g., network effects, analysis scope). The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the burden, but for a tool that fetches and analyzes external resources, more guidance on usage and limitations would be beneficial.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'sitemap_url' is clarified as a 'Full sitemap URL', and 'sample_urls' is explained as 'Number of sitemap URLs to validate with GET requests'. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it could detail validation outcomes or URL format expectations.

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 with specific verbs ('fetch and analyze') and resource ('XML sitemap or sitemap index'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sitemaps' or 'crawl_site_seo', which could have overlapping functionality.

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 'get_sitemaps' (which might list sitemaps) or 'crawl_site_seo' (which might perform broader analysis). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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