AutoRank MCP

check_description_length

Check if a meta description risks truncation in Google search results. Get a clear pass or fail verdict based on pixel width limits.

Instructions

Check whether a meta description will be truncated in Google results.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "check_description_length"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`description`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals the tool checks truncation but does not disclose the truncation criteria (e.g., character count, pixel width), how it simulates Google results, or any edge cases. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool whose core behavior depends on these rules.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exactly one sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's central purpose is truncation checking, the description omits the most important context: what threshold or algorithm is used. The output schema exists, so return format may be covered, but the behavioral criteria for truncation are not. This makes the description incomplete for a task where the rule is essential.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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 only adds 'meta description' to the parameter, which is somewhat redundant given the tool name. It does not explain expected input format, length limits, or any additional constraints, leaving the sole parameter under-specified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Check') and a specific resource ('meta description') with a clear outcome ('will be truncated in Google results'). It is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_title_length.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies a clear use case: when you have a meta description and want to know if it will be truncated. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like serp_preview or check_title_length, nor any exclusion criteria.

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

Deploy Server