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 and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it specifies the tool is for reading ('Get'), not modifying, settings; lists return components (e.g., mainSettings, scan filters); and adds context like 'Does not consume API credits' for cost implications. However, it lacks details on error handling or response format, 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and usage guidance, all in three sentences with minimal waste. It could be slightly more structured by separating return values into a list, but overall it's efficient and well-organized.

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 moderate complexity (read operation with detailed returns) and no annotations or output schema, the description does well by specifying return components and usage context. However, it doesn't fully explain the return structure or potential errors, leaving some completeness gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 the single parameter 'projectId' with its type and constraints. The description does not add meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter usage or nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('current configuration of EXISTING audit project'), specifying it retrieves settings rather than creating or modifying them. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_site_audit_project_default_settings' by contrasting existing vs. new projects, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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?

Explicitly guides when to use this tool ('EXISTING audit project') vs. an alternative ('Compare with get_site_audit_project_default_settings which returns template for NEW projects'), providing clear context for selection. It also mentions 'Does not consume API credits' as a practical consideration for usage.

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