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 mentions the tool is 'deprecated but still functional,' which is useful context about its lifecycle, but fails to describe critical behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, pagination, or error handling for a tool with complex filtering 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core functionality and return data, the second adds important behavioral context (deprecation). It's front-loaded with key information and has no wasted words.

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 (4 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and deprecation status but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying keyword analysis and Google search results, which are already covered by parameter descriptions. 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 with specific verbs ('Shows Google's top-100 search results') and resources ('for the analyzed keyword'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_keyword_full_top' by specifying it returns position data, URLs, domains, subdomains, and SERP feature types.

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 like 'get_keyword_full_top' or 'get_keyword_top_urls', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual note is that it's deprecated but functional, which is not usage guidance.

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