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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: it performs analysis (not just data retrieval), discloses cost implications ('Each URL costs 1 API credit, minimum 1 credit per request'), and implies pagination through parameters. However, it doesn't specify rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid domains, leaving some gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by analysis details and cost information. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from operational details, but it remains efficient and clear.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, analysis scope, and costs, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or performance characteristics. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to guide the agent on what to expect from the tool's behavior and results.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how 'domain' interacts with 'filters' or how 'sort' affects the analysis. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 with specific verbs and resources: 'Get URLs within a domain and keyword count for each URL. Analyze URL structure, performance distribution, and identify top-performing pages.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on domain URL analysis with keyword counts, unlike tools like 'get_domain_keywords' or 'get_url_keywords' which focus on keywords rather than URL enumeration and analysis.

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 implies usage for analyzing domain URLs and performance, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_url_summary_traff' or 'get_top_pages_by_backlinks'. It mentions API credit costs, which provides some operational context, but lacks clear guidance on scenarios where this tool is preferred over other domain or URL analysis tools in the sibling list.

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