mcp-seo-audit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the core actions (deleting token and triggering auth flow) but omits critical details like side effects (e.g., interrupting other operations), user interaction requirements (browser flow), error handling, or rate limits. It adequately conveys the mutation nature but lacks depth.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, using only two sentences that directly explain the tool's actions without any wasted words. Each sentence adds essential information about the sequence of operations.

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 complexity (authentication flow with potential side effects), no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on prerequisites, consequences, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent to infer usage.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, focusing instead on the tool's behavior, which aligns with the schema's emptiness.

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 specific action ('Perform a logout and new login sequence') and the resource involved ('current OAuth token'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which focus on SEO analysis, site management, or indexing operations. It uses precise verbs ('Deletes', 'triggers') to define the tool's function.

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, prerequisites (e.g., when authentication fails), or exclusions. It lacks context about typical scenarios for reauthentication, making it unclear when an agent should invoke it.

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