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 the tool detects keyword cannibalization and explains the negative effects, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it's a read-only or mutating operation. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise explanation of the problem, and ends with a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and parameters adequately, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like data sources or limitations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: 'site_url' (exact GSC property URL), 'days' (lookback period with default), and 'min_impressions' (minimum threshold with default). It adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic titles, though it doesn't cover validation rules or examples.

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 a specific verb ('detect') and resource ('keyword cannibalization'), and explains what it identifies ('queries where multiple pages compete for the same keyword'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on keyword competition analysis, unlike tools for site management, auditing, or performance metrics.

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 identifying keyword conflicts that dilute ranking power, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_page_seo' or 'find_striking_distance_keywords'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about its specific application context.

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