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 adds useful context: it specifies that the tool 'does not consume API credits' (indicating no cost implications) and describes the return format. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: it states the purpose, lists return fields, and provides usage and cost context. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job by explaining the return fields and cost behavior. However, for a tool with 3 parameters and many siblings, it could benefit from more detail on error cases or performance expectations to be fully complete.

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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (limit, offset, teamMemberId). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'teamMemberId' filtering works in practice. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 list of all one-page audit projects' with specific return fields (pageId, url, name, status, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' by specifying it's for 'one-page audit projects' and mentions it 'does not consume API credits,' which differentiates it from potentially credit-consuming tools.

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 context on when to use this tool: 'Use this as starting point to find pageId for other operations.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many siblings, such as 'list_projects' or 'get_site_audits_list,' which might serve similar purposes.

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