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 effectively describes key behaviors: the tool's dependency on hasAdditionRows flag, error conditions, varying response structures by error type, and that it 'Does not consume API credits.' However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects, 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds valuable information without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more concise by combining some clauses, but overall it's efficient with zero waste 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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, conditional behavior based on error types) and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining the varying response structures and prerequisites. It covers the essential context needed for correct usage, though it could benefit from more detail on error handling or example outputs.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing that the 'error' parameter must match error.key from page_audit_get_results_report and only works for errors with hasAdditionRows=true. 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 detailed list of problematic elements for specific error types.' It specifies the resource (problematic elements for error types) and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it only works for errors with hasAdditionRows=true from page_audit_get_results_report, making it highly 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidelines: 'ONLY works for errors with hasAdditionRows=true from page_audit_get_results_report response' and warns about errors where it won't work ('Returns error for page-level errors where hasAdditionRows=false'). It also instructs to 'Always check hasAdditionRows flag before calling this method,' offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use criteria.

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