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 that the tool retrieves data ('get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not specify authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or what happens if inputs are invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 purpose clearly, followed by a bullet-point list of parameters with concise explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundancy, 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 that there is an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the purpose and parameters adequately. However, for a tool with no annotations and multiple parameters, it lacks behavioral context like error handling or performance considerations. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in usage guidance and transparency.

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 meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'site_url' is an 'Exact GSC property URL', 'page_url' is 'The specific page URL to analyze', and provides defaults and constraints for 'days' and 'row_limit'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail formats or examples for URLs.

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: 'Get search queries driving traffic to a specific page.' It specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('search queries'), and indicates the scope ('driving traffic to a specific page'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_search_analytics' or 'get_advanced_search_analytics', which may have overlapping functions, so it doesn't achieve a perfect 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. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the site must be added first using 'add_site', or when to choose this over other analytics tools like 'get_search_analytics'. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, leaving usage unclear.

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