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 states the action ('Check') but doesn't explain what 'indexing notification status' entails, such as whether it's a read-only operation, what the response format is, or any rate limits or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and parameter, with no wasted words. It could be slightly improved by front-loading more context, but it's efficiently structured overall.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is minimally complete. However, without annotations and with unclear differentiation from siblings, it lacks depth for effective agent use, making it just adequate.

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 minimal semantics by specifying that 'url' is 'The URL to check', which clarifies its role. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but not exceptional, aligning with the baseline expectation for such a simple schema.

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 action ('Check') and resource ('latest indexing notification status for a URL'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'inspect_url' or 'batch_inspect_urls', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. With siblings like 'inspect_url' and 'batch_inspect_urls' available, there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool's use.

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