Serpstat MCP Server

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 what the tool returns ('intersection data showing which donors link to multiple domains... including link metrics, anchor texts, and domain authority scores'), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains the use case, and the third details the return data. Each sentence adds value with zero waste, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and return data, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like pagination handling or error scenarios. The absence of an output schema makes the return description valuable, but not exhaustive.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying that 'query' is the main domain and 'intersect' are competitors, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get backlinks from domains that link to multiple analyzed sites simultaneously.' It specifies the verb ('Get backlinks'), resource ('domains'), and scope ('intersection analysis'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_active_backlinks' or 'get_referring_domains' that likely handle different backlink queries.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'useful for competitive backlink analysis and identifying potential link sources.' It implies usage for comparing a target domain with competitors, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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