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 indicates this is a read operation ('shows'), it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, pagination behavior (beyond what the schema indicates), or whether this is a computationally expensive operation. For a tool with complex filtering and sorting capabilities, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 purpose, the second enumerates the data returned. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the data details into the first sentence.

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 6 parameters (including complex nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what data is returned but not the format or structure. The combination of good schema coverage and a clear purpose statement makes this minimally viable, but more behavioral context would be needed for optimal agent understanding given the tool's complexity.

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 minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the 'researched keyword' which maps to the 'keyword' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage or relationships. The baseline of 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: 'Shows all search queries semantically related to the researched keyword' with specific details about the data displayed (search volume, CPC, competition, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('shows') and identifies the resource ('related keywords'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_keyword_suggestions' or 'get_keywords'.

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 multiple keyword-related tools in the sibling list (get_keyword_suggestions, get_keywords, get_keywords_info), there's no indication of when this semantic relationship tool is preferred over other keyword discovery methods. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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