mcp-seo-audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions crawling and aggregating SEO issues, but fails to disclose critical traits: whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output entails (e.g., report format). For a tool that likely involves web crawling and data processing, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 brief parameter list. There's no wasted text, and the structure is clear. However, it could be slightly more polished (e.g., by integrating parameter details more seamlessly), but it's efficient 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's complexity (crawling and SEO analysis), no annotations, and an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and the parameters, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. With the output schema handling return values, the description doesn't need to detail outputs, but it should address other gaps like operational constraints.

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 basic meaning for both parameters: 'start_url' as the 'First URL to crawl' and 'max_pages' as the 'Maximum number of same-origin HTML pages to crawl'. This clarifies the intent beyond the schema's bare titles, but it doesn't provide details like URL format constraints or default behavior for 'max_pages' (though the schema shows a default of 10). The compensation is minimal but adequate for a baseline.

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: 'Crawl a site from a start URL and aggregate common technical/on-page SEO issues.' It specifies the verb ('crawl'), resource ('site'), and outcome ('aggregate SEO issues'), making it distinct from siblings like 'analyze_page_seo' or 'site_audit' which focus on different aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'audit_live_site', which might be similar, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing the site to be added first (via 'add_site'), or compare it to siblings like 'audit_live_site' or 'site_audit' that might offer overlapping functionality. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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