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 does well by explaining the tool's limitations (only works for hierarchical errors, not page-level ones), its dependency on a previous step's output (crc parameter), and a key operational detail ('Does not consume API credits'). However, it lacks information on error handling beyond one example, response format, or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses clear bullet-like points and an example to illustrate usage. While slightly verbose due to the example and clarifications, every sentence adds value (e.g., distinguishing error types, explaining parameter linkage), making it efficient overall.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the essential context: purpose, usage workflow, limitations, and key parameter semantics. It explains the tool's role in a two-step process and its constraints. However, it doesn't describe the output format or full error scenarios, which would be helpful given the lack of structured output information.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the 'crc' parameter's source and purpose (must match urlCrc/imageCrc from previous method), but doesn't provide additional context for other parameters like 'reportId', 'errorName', or pagination parameters. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description compensates partially but not extensively.

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: it's a drill-down step that shows WHERE a problematic element is used, specifically for hierarchical errors like images, scripts, and links. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning it's 'Step 2' and referencing 'get_site_audit_pages_spec_errors' as the previous step, making its role in a workflow evident.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: as a follow-up to 'get_site_audit_pages_spec_errors' for hierarchical errors, using a crc from that response. It also clearly states when NOT to use it: for page-level errors like 'no_desc, no_title, h1_missing', specifying it returns an error in those cases. This covers both usage context and exclusions effectively.

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