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. It mentions 'live SEO audit' and 'small same-origin crawl', which implies real-time analysis and limited scope, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like execution time, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'live' entails (e.g., real-time vs cached data). The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple components.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a concise list of components, and then parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (combining multiple SEO functions) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, key components, and parameter meanings. However, without annotations and with 0% schema coverage, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., execution limits, data freshness) to fully guide the agent.

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 provides clear semantics for all three parameters: 'url' as the site/page URL, 'crawl_pages' as the number of pages to crawl for specific issues, and 'include_lighthouse' as a flag for an additional audit. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify ranges or constraints for 'crawl_pages'.

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: 'Run a live SEO audit' with specific components listed (page analysis, robots.txt inspection, sitemap discovery, PSI data, crawl). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'without requiring Search Console access' and combining multiple functions, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'site_audit' or 'crawl_site_seo'.

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 for SEO auditing when Search Console access isn't available, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'site_audit' or 'run_lighthouse_audit'. It mentions combining multiple functions, which suggests a comprehensive approach, but lacks clear exclusions or specific scenarios.

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