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. While it mentions what metrics are returned, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, whether this is a read-only operation, potential costs/credits usage, or how results are structured/paginated. For a tool with 5 parameters and complex filtering/sorting capabilities, this is a significant gap.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and scope. The first sentence clearly states what the tool does, and the second sentence elaborates on the types of metrics included. There's no wasted language or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters (including complex nested objects for sorting and filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, how filtering/sorting affects results, what the output format looks like, or any limitations/constraints. The agent would need to rely heavily on the schema alone to understand how to use this tool effectively.

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 minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'multiple keywords' (implied by the array parameter) and 'keyword intents' (covered in the schema's withIntents description). The description doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns that aren't already in the schema.

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 keyword overview showing volume, CPC, competition level, difficulty, and additional metrics for multiple keywords.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('keyword overview'), and lists key metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_keywords' or 'get_keyword_top', which appear to be related keyword analysis tools.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_keywords', 'get_keyword_top', and 'get_keyword_suggestions', there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it's the appropriate choice. The description mentions 'comprehensive analysis' but doesn't clarify how this differs from other keyword tools.

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