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 mentions the tool is 'fast' and provides 'brief' information, which adds useful context about performance characteristics. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid domains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that both add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important usage guidance. There's no redundant information, and the structure is front-loaded with the main functionality. It could be slightly more polished but earns a high score for efficiency.

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 (domain analysis with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details about behavioral characteristics, error handling, and output format. The description is minimally viable but has clear gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('query' and 'searchType') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 TOP-10 anchors with the number of backlinks and referring domains for domain analysis.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('TOP-10 anchors'), and key metrics ('backlinks and referring domains'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling 'get_anchors' (which likely returns more comprehensive anchor data), so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 clear usage context: 'use this method if you need a fast brief way to get info about top 10 anchors.' This indicates when to use this tool (for quick, limited insights) versus potentially more comprehensive alternatives. However, it doesn't name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when NOT to use it, keeping it from a perfect score.

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