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. It mentions 'detailed info' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external services.

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, with the main purpose stated first and parameter details following. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter note more seamlessly.

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, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, low parameter schema coverage, and complexity from interacting with GSC, the description is incomplete—it lacks context on authentication, error handling, or operational limits, which are crucial for effective use.

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 beyond the input schema: it specifies that 'site_url' is an 'Exact GSC property URL', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this provides some value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details, such as format examples or constraints.

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 ('List all sitemaps') and resource ('for a property with detailed info'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_sitemap' or 'submit_sitemap', which would require mentioning scope or purpose distinctions.

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, context, or exclusions, such as whether it requires prior setup or differs from other sitemap-related tools in the sibling list.

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