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 but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions what the tool inspects (indexing status, rich results, mobile usability) but doesn't disclose critical details like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences: one stating the purpose and another listing parameters with brief explanations. It's front-loaded with the core function. The parameter section could be slightly more structured, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 (which handles return values) and only 2 parameters, the description is moderately complete. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, authentication) and clearer parameter guidance to be fully adequate for agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining that 'site_url' requires an 'Exact GSC property URL' with an example format, and 'page_url' is 'The specific URL to inspect'. However, it doesn't fully document both parameters' semantics (e.g., what constitutes a valid GSC property URL beyond the example). Baseline would be lower without this partial compensation.

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: 'Inspect a URL for indexing status, rich results, and mobile usability.' This specifies the verb ('inspect') and resource ('URL') with concrete inspection targets. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_inspect_urls' or 'analyze_page_seo', which would require a 5.

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 sibling tools like 'batch_inspect_urls' for multiple URLs or 'analyze_page_seo' for broader SEO analysis. There's no context about prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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