Serpstat MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns data with specific fields (e.g., referring domain, threat type) and mentions the purpose ('identifying and removing harmful backlinks'), but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or error handling. The description adds some context but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 sized with three sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, the second details return values, and the third explains importance. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the second and third sentences.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and return fields but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or usage constraints. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context to be fully adequate for agent invocation.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain 'query' beyond 'analyzed domain' or clarify 'linkPerDomain' usage). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Get malicious backlinks pointing to the analyzed domain') and resource ('backlinks from sites flagged for threats'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_active_backlinks' by specifying 'malicious' and 'threat' focus, making the differentiation explicit.

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 implies usage context ('Essential for identifying and removing harmful backlinks that could damage domain reputation and SEO rankings'), suggesting when this tool is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_active_backlinks' or 'get_lost_backlinks', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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