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 (implied by 'Launch'), returns a 'reportId' for tracking, has API cost details (credit usage), and specifies asynchronous processing with a wait requirement. However, it doesn't mention error handling, timeouts, or permission requirements, 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential behavioral details (return value, progress checking, costs, wait condition). Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured for an agent's understanding.

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 (asynchronous audit launch with cost implications) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, costs, and next steps, but could improve by mentioning error cases or linking to result analysis tools more explicitly. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by describing the return value ('reportId').

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, with the single parameter 'projectId' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('Launch audit scan for a project') and resource ('project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_site_audits_list' (which checks progress) and 'set_site_audit_settings' (which configures settings). It explicitly identifies the tool's role in initiating scans versus monitoring or analyzing results.

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 ('Launch audit scan') versus alternatives, naming 'get_site_audits_list' for checking progress and implying that analysis should wait until 'progress=100'. It also includes cost considerations (API credits) and prerequisites ('Wait for progress=100 before analyzing results'), 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.