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 states the tool's purpose and constraints (structured data requirements), but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, whether the removal is permanent or reversible, or what the output contains. It adds some context but leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important constraints and parameter details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value 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 complexity (a removal request with specific constraints), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameters, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like authentication needs or error handling.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the single parameter ('url: The full URL to request removal for'), adding meaning beyond the schema's basic type definition. However, it doesn't specify URL format requirements or validation rules, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 ('request Google to remove a URL from the index') and resource ('via the Indexing API'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'request_indexing' (which likely adds URLs) and 'delete_site' (which removes entire sites). The mention of structured data requirements further clarifies its specialized purpose.

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 explicit context on when to use this tool ('Only works for pages with JobPosting or BroadcastEvent structured data'), which helps differentiate it from general removal tools. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name direct alternatives among siblings, such as 'delete_site' for broader actions.

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