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 the API returns data but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's read-only/destructive. 'Run' implies an action but lacks details on costs, latency, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool interacting with an external API.

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 with 3 sentences: purpose, return data, and parameter details. It's front-loaded with the main action and uses a clear 'Args:' section. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., API constraints) and usage guidelines. For a tool with external API calls and no annotations, more detail on limitations would improve completeness.

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 semantics: 'url' as 'Full page URL', 'strategy' as 'mobile or desktop', and 'categories' as 'Comma-separated Lighthouse categories', clarifying format and options beyond the bare schema. This adequately covers the 3 parameters, though it could specify default values 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: 'Run Google's PageSpeed Insights API for a URL' with specific verb ('Run') and resource ('PageSpeed Insights API'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'run_lighthouse_audit' by mentioning it returns 'Lighthouse lab data plus available Chrome UX Report field data'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all SEO/performance siblings, keeping it at 4.

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 'run_lighthouse_audit', 'get_core_web_vitals', or 'audit_live_site'. It mentions what the tool does but offers no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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