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: it's a write operation ('Creates new audit report'), has a cost ('API COST: 10 credits per rescan'), and returns a specific output ('Returns reportId for the new scan'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like overwriting existing data or error conditions, 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 highly concise and well-structured in three sentences: first states the core action, second covers output and cost, third provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 (write operation with cost and output), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, behavior, and output. However, it lacks details on error handling or response format beyond 'reportId', leaving minor gaps in completeness for a mutation tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed parameter documentation (e.g., 'Page ID to rescan', enum values for userAgent). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced 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 specific action ('Rescan existing one-page audit project') and resource ('page'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'page_audit_start_scan' (which likely initiates new scans) and 'page_audit_get_reports_for_page' (which retrieves existing reports). It explicitly mentions creating a new audit report, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('Rescan existing one-page audit project') and when to use an alternative ('Use page_audit_get_reports_for_page to track progress'). It also mentions prerequisites like 'existing' project and cost implications ('API COST: 10 credits per rescan'), offering comprehensive usage context.

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