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 'Fetch and summarize' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'summarize' entails (e.g., format, depth). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 core purpose stated first and parameter details in a clear 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (fetching and summarizing a file), no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, which are needed for full context despite the output schema handling return values.

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 meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the parameter 'url_or_origin' as 'Full URL, origin, or sc-domain property', which clarifies acceptable input formats. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it could provide more 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Fetch and summarize') and resource ('the site's robots.txt file'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inspect_url' or 'crawl_site_seo', which might also involve URL inspection, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for quick checks versus detailed analysis or how it compares to tools like 'inspect_url' or 'audit_live_site'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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