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 'pagination support,' which is useful context not in the schema, but it doesn't describe other key behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format/structure of the returned list. For a read-only list 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve a list of projects') and adds a key behavioral note ('with pagination support'). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (a list operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and pagination but lacks details on authentication, error cases, return format, or how it fits among sibling tools. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for reliable use.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('page' and 'size'), including defaults and allowed values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain pagination mechanics or result ordering). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info 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 action ('Retrieve a list') and resource ('projects associated with the account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other project-related tools like 'create_project' or 'delete_project' beyond the list vs. create/delete distinction, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 mentions 'with pagination support,' which provides some context about when to use this tool (for browsing large result sets). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., whether it's for all projects or filtered ones, or how it differs from other list-like tools in the sibling set), and there's no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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