Ahrefs MCP Server

Official

by ahrefs

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools are organized into clear categories (keywords-explorer, site-explorer, management, etc.), which helps differentiate them, but within categories there is significant overlap. For example, site-explorer-metrics, site-explorer-metrics-by-country, and site-explorer-metrics-history all retrieve metrics with slight variations, which could cause confusion. The descriptions are detailed but many tools share similar purposes with minor scope differences.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent hyphen-separated pattern with a clear category-action structure (e.g., keywords-explorer-overview, site-explorer-metrics). However, there are minor deviations like 'batch-analysis-batch-analysis' (redundant) and 'serp-overview-serp-overview' (redundant), and some names are lengthy but generally predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With 42 tools, this server is overly large for a single MCP server, making it cumbersome for agents to navigate. While Ahrefs is a comprehensive SEO platform, the tool count could be reduced by consolidating overlapping functionalities (e.g., multiple metrics tools) or splitting into focused sub-servers for better manageability.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides extensive coverage of Ahrefs' SEO capabilities, including keyword research, site analysis, backlink tracking, rank tracking, and management features. It supports CRUD-like operations (e.g., retrieval, analysis, historical data) across all major domains, with no obvious gaps for typical SEO workflows.
Average 2.7/5 across 42 of 42 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'options to control protocol and scope' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what 'statistics' entail (e.g., counts, trends). The description is too vague to inform the agent adequately about how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the second sentence about using the 'doc tool' is redundant if the schema is already provided, adding clutter without value. It's moderately concise but could be more streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, and output format, making it insufficient for the agent to use the tool effectively without external guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't add meaning for any parameters. It references 'protocol and scope' but doesn't explain what 'mode', 'protocol', or 'target' mean, their formats, or valid values. The agent is left guessing about parameter semantics beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool provides backlink statistics for a URL/domain with date and protocol/scope options, which clarifies the verb (provides statistics) and resource (backlinks). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-all-backlinks' or 'site-explorer-refdomains', leaving ambiguity about what makes this tool unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema', which provides a prerequisite but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'filtering and sorting options' and hints at output types ('keyword metrics and related terms'), but lacks critical details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether this is a read-only or mutative operation. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use doc tool first...') is a prerequisite instruction that might be better placed elsewhere, slightly disrupting flow. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be more structured to separate usage notes from functional description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, output structure, or behavioral traits. While it states the purpose, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without external documentation, especially with the high parameter count and lack of schema descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 10 parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not compensate by explaining any parameters—it only vaguely references 'filtering and sorting options' without detailing what 'select', 'country', 'where', etc., mean. This leaves all parameters undocumented, severely hindering correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns keyword metrics and related terms... for a given keyword or keyword list, with filtering and sorting options.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('keyword metrics and related terms'), and scope ('also rank for' and 'also talk about' keywords). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'keywords-explorer-matching-terms', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which is a prerequisite but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'keywords-explorer-matching-terms' or 'keywords-explorer-overview'. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or comparisons to siblings are included, leaving the agent with little context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving metrics, which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. The note about using the 'doc' tool adds procedural context but does not describe the tool's behavior during invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: one states the purpose, and the other gives a procedural note. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, but the second sentence about the 'doc' tool, while potentially useful, adds length without enhancing understanding of the tool's use. The structure is clear but could be more focused on usage rather than schema retrieval.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and output format. The note to use the 'doc' tool suggests missing information but does not itself provide completeness. For a tool with no structured support, the description should do more to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the 'keyword' and 'limit' parameters. The description does not compensate by explaining what these parameters mean (e.g., format of 'keyword', what 'limit' applies to, default values, or constraints). It only references using another tool to get schema details, failing to add semantic value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves search volume metrics for a specified keyword broken down by country.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('search volume metrics'), and scope ('by country'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'keywords-explorer-volume-history' or 'site-explorer-metrics-by-country', which prevents 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a usage note: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This provides some guidance on prerequisites, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other keywords-explorer tools or metrics tools), nor does it specify any exclusions or contextual triggers. The guidance is limited to schema retrieval, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'retrieves' (implying read-only) and filters data, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality and followed by a prerequisite note. It's efficient with zero waste, though the second sentence could be more integrated. Overall, it's appropriately sized and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and return values. For a tool in this context, more comprehensive information is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions parameters 'country_code' and 'us_state' but doesn't explain their semantics, formats, or constraints beyond filtering. Without schema details, the description adds minimal value, failing to adequately document the two parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Retrieves a list of management locations filtered by country code and optionally by US state,' which provides a clear verb ('retrieves') and resource ('management locations'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'management-projects' or 'management-project-competitors,' leaving the specific context vague. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a directive to 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which implies a prerequisite but doesn't provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when-not scenarios or explicit alternatives among siblings, leaving usage context incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'flexible filtering and sorting options' and refers to the 'doc tool' for schema details, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with two sentences, but it is not optimally structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second sentence ('Use doc tool first to get the real input schema') is procedural and could be better integrated or omitted if the schema were self-explanatory. While not wasteful, it lacks front-loading of critical information, such as key parameters or usage context, reducing its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but fails to provide necessary context for usage, parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent is left guessing about how to use the tool effectively, making this description insufficient for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaningful information about the 9 parameters beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the parameters (e.g., 'history', 'mode', 'order_by') are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not explain what these parameters do, their expected values, or how they affect the output, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns a list of a site's or URL's best-performing pages, ranked by the number of referring external links.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('pages'), and ranking criteria ('number of referring external links'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-best-by-internal-links' or 'site-explorer-top-pages', which prevents 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'flexible filtering and sorting options' but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'site-explorer-best-by-internal-links' for internal links or 'site-explorer-top-pages' for other metrics). The instruction 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema' is procedural rather than contextual, offering no help in tool selection. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving data with metrics, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what happens if parameters are invalid. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose statement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use doc tool first...') is a technical directive that doesn't belong in the purpose description. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be more structured to separate purpose from parameter hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the same domain, the description is inadequate. It provides basic purpose but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, differentiation from siblings, and output format information. The tool appears complex but the description doesn't provide sufficient guidance for proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'specified domain, subdomain, or URL' which hints at the 'target' parameter, but doesn't explain any of the 8 parameters (limit, mode, order_by, protocol, select, target, timeout, where) or their semantics. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves data about external anchor text for a specified domain/subdomain/URL, including specific metrics like dofollow link counts and distinct linked domains. It specifies the resource (external anchor text) and verb (retrieves data about), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-anchors' or 'site-explorer-linked-anchors-internal' beyond mentioning 'external' in the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'site-explorer-anchors' or 'site-explorer-linked-anchors-internal'. It only includes a directive to 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema', which is a technical prerequisite rather than usage context. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or alternative tool recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'filtering, field selection, and various scopes of analysis,' which hints at behavioral traits like configurability. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what 'information' includes (e.g., metrics, lists). For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose and features, the second is a technical note. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence about using the 'doc tool' is arguably unnecessary clutter if the schema should be self-contained, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given high complexity (8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or detailed usage scenarios. The mention of features like filtering is too vague to guide effective tool invocation, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only vaguely references 'filtering, field selection, and various scopes' without explaining specific parameters like 'mode', 'order_by', 'protocol', or 'where'. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters semantically unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves information about external domains that are linked from a specified target domain or URL.' It specifies the action (retrieves), resource (information about external domains), and scope (linked from target). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-outlinks-stats' or 'site-explorer-refdomains', which may have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This is a technical prerequisite but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. 'site-explorer-outlinks-stats' for outlink statistics or 'site-explorer-refdomains' for referring domains). No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool recommendations are included.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only), but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what the statistical data includes (e.g., counts, distributions). For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: one states the purpose clearly, and the other provides a usage note. It's front-loaded with the main function, but the second sentence is somewhat vague ('real input schema') and doesn't add core value efficiently. While not verbose, it could be more structured with clearer parameter hints or behavioral details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, output format, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a data retrieval tool in a suite with many similar tools, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (mode, protocol, target) are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'URL, domain, or site section,' which hints at the 'target' parameter, but doesn't explain 'mode' or 'protocol' or provide any details on formats, constraints, or examples. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving most parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves statistical data about the outbound links (outlinks) from a specified URL, domain, or site section.' It uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('statistical data about outbound links'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on outlinks statistics rather than backlinks, keywords, or other metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'site-explorer-metrics' or 'site-explorer-backlinks-stats' beyond the outlinks focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This implies a prerequisite but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other site-explorer tools for different metrics) or what contexts it's suited for. No explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives are given, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool performs analysis but doesn't describe what happens during execution (e.g., is it synchronous/asynchronous, does it make external API calls, are there rate limits, what permissions are required, what happens on failure). The description is minimal and lacks essential behavioral context for a tool with 5 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with two sentences, but the second sentence about using the 'doc tool' feels like a workaround rather than essential information. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, but overall structure could be improved by integrating parameter guidance more naturally.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It provides basic purpose but lacks essential details about parameter meanings, behavioral characteristics, output format, and differentiation from similar tools. The mention of using 'doc tool' suggests incomplete documentation that requires external reference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'selected SEO, backlink, organic, and paid traffic metrics' which hints at the 'select' parameter's purpose, and 'multiple URLs, domains, or subdomains' hints at 'targets'. However, it doesn't explain 'country', 'order_by', or 'volume_mode' parameters at all, leaving 3 of 5 parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'batch analysis of multiple URLs, domains, or subdomains' to retrieve specific SEO and traffic metrics. It specifies the verb ('performs batch analysis'), resource ('URLs, domains, or subdomains'), and scope ('selected SEO, backlink, organic, and paid traffic metrics'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-metrics' or 'site-explorer-metrics-by-country'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema' which is a technical prerequisite rather than usage context. There's no indication of when batch analysis is preferred over individual analysis tools or how it differs from similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'extensive support for filtering, sorting, and metric selection' and implies retrieval of SEO metrics, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on errors. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use doc tool first to get the real input schema') is procedural clutter that doesn't belong in a purpose-focused description. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be more streamlined by integrating the filtering/sorting details more efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It outlines the basic purpose but misses essential context: no details on parameter usage, behavioral traits like safety or performance, output format, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with many configuration options, this leaves too much ambiguity for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 10 parameters. It only vaguely references 'filtering, sorting, and metric selection' and 'matching input terms or phrases,' which partially hints at parameters like 'where', 'order_by', 'select', 'terms', or 'keywords'. However, it fails to explain specific parameters such as 'country', 'limit', 'match_mode', 'timeout', or 'keyword_list_id', leaving most semantics undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves keyword ideas and their associated SEO metrics by matching input terms or phrases in a specified country.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('keyword ideas and their associated SEO metrics'), and key constraints ('matching input terms or phrases in a specified country'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'keywords-explorer-related-terms' or 'keywords-explorer-search-suggestions', which likely serve similar purposes in the same domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'extensive support for filtering, sorting, and metric selection,' which hints at when to use it for detailed analysis, but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice. The instruction 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema' is procedural rather than contextual, failing to guide selection among alternatives like 'keywords-explorer-overview' or 'keywords-explorer-volume-by-country'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'overview of keyword metrics' and hints at complexity with the doc tool note, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, data freshness, pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), or what the output looks like. The description is too vague for a tool with 11 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use doc tool first...') is a workaround that undermines clarity. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, but the structure is inefficient due to the reliance on external documentation for parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, output format, and differentiation from siblings. The doc tool note indicates missing information but doesn't provide it directly, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'keywords, domains, or URLs' and 'country,' which loosely maps to some parameters (e.g., 'keywords,' 'country'), but doesn't explain the semantics of the 11 parameters (e.g., 'select,' 'where,' 'target_mode,' 'timeout'). The doc tool note suggests schema details are elsewhere, but the description itself adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Provides an overview of keyword metrics... for specified keywords, domains, or URLs within a given country.' It specifies the verb ('provides an overview'), resource ('keyword metrics'), and scope ('within a given country'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'keywords-explorer-volume-by-country' or 'keywords-explorer-related-terms' beyond the general 'overview' term.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a usage note: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which provides some guidance on prerequisites. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other keywords-explorer tools), no exclusions, and no context for choosing among the many sibling tools listed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions options to 'filter, sort, and customize returned fields by country' and references a 'timeout' parameter, hinting at potential performance constraints. However, it lacks critical details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what happens on errors. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose and features, and the second provides a usage instruction. It's relatively concise but includes an unnecessary directive ('Use doc tool first') that might be better placed elsewhere. The structure is front-loaded with core functionality, but could be more streamlined by integrating the instruction more naturally.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It outlines the tool's purpose and hints at some parameters but fails to provide adequate behavioral context, parameter details, or output expectations. For a data retrieval tool with multiple filtering options, more comprehensive guidance is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds some context by mentioning 'filter, sort, and customize returned fields by country' and 'specified queries or keyword lists', which loosely maps to parameters like 'where', 'order_by', 'select', 'keywords', and 'keyword_list_id'. However, it doesn't explain specific parameter roles, formats, or constraints, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Provides keyword search suggestions and related keyword metrics (e.g., search volume, difficulty, CPC) for specified queries or keyword lists.' It specifies the verb ('provides'), resource ('keyword search suggestions and related keyword metrics'), and examples of metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'keywords-explorer-matching-terms' or 'keywords-explorer-related-terms', which likely have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a usage instruction: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This provides a prerequisite but doesn't guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or comparisons to sibling tools are provided, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria among similar keyword explorer tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool 'retrieves information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. The mention of using the 'doc tool' for schema details adds some procedural context but doesn't describe the tool's behavior during execution.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and scope. The second sentence provides procedural advice but feels somewhat out of place in a tool description. While not verbose, the structure could be improved by integrating usage context more seamlessly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It outlines what information is retrieved but doesn't explain how to use the parameters effectively, what the output looks like, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with multiple filtering parameters and no structured documentation, more guidance is needed to make it fully usable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It lists the types of information retrieved (ownership, access type, presence of Rank Tracker keywords, project ID), which loosely maps to the four parameters (owned_by, access, has_keywords, project_id), but doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they filter results. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves information about existing projects' and specifies what information is included (ownership, access type, presence of Rank Tracker keywords, and project ID). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on project metadata retrieval rather than keyword analysis, site exploration, or other functions. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which is procedural advice rather than contextual guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no explicit mention of when this tool should be used over sibling tools like 'management-locations' or 'management-project-competitors,' nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool allows 'comparison between current and previous data,' hinting at a read-only comparison function, but fails to detail critical behaviors such as data retrieval limits, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides a usage instruction. It is front-loaded with the core function, but the second sentence is somewhat tangential (directing to another tool for schema details) rather than enhancing the tool's own usage context, making it less efficient than ideal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It outlines the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, output structure, and differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to enable effective tool use, which it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 10 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only vaguely references 'specified project and date' and 'comparison between current and previous data,' which loosely maps to 'project_id,' 'date,' and 'date_compared' parameters. It does not explain the purpose, format, or constraints of other parameters like 'device,' 'limit,' 'order_by,' 'select,' 'timeout,' 'volume_mode,' or 'where,' failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Provides an overview of competitor rankings and keyword metrics for a specified project and date in Ahrefs Rank Tracker, allowing comparison between current and previous data.' It specifies the verb ('provides an overview'), resource ('competitor rankings and keyword metrics'), and context ('Ahrefs Rank Tracker'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rank-tracker-overview' or 'management-project-competitors'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a usage instruction: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which provides a prerequisite step. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other rank-tracker or competitor-related tools), nor does it specify exclusions or contextual triggers for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'support for historical comparison, filtering, column selection, and device type,' which gives some context about capabilities. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, what happens with invalid inputs, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.') feels like a workaround rather than integral to the tool's purpose. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core functionality, but it could be more structured to separate purpose from features. Overall, it's not wasteful but could be more polished.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, 4 required), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions key features but fails to explain parameter semantics adequately, provide behavioral context, or guide usage relative to siblings. The reference to using another tool for schema details suggests the description itself is insufficient for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'project and date' (mapping to project_id and date parameters) and hints at 'historical comparison' (date_compared), 'filtering' (where), 'column selection' (select), and 'device type' (device). However, 6 parameters (limit, order_by, timeout, volume_mode, and the exact nature of date_compared and where) remain completely unexplained. The description adds some value but doesn't adequately compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Provides an overview of tracked keyword rankings and related search metrics for a specified project and date.' It includes specific verbs ('provides an overview') and resources ('tracked keyword rankings and related search metrics'), and mentions key parameters like project and date. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rank-tracker-competitors-overview' or 'keywords-explorer-overview', which appear to be related tools in the same domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes one usage guideline: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This provides some procedural guidance but doesn't address when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate compared to sibling tools like 'rank-tracker-competitors-overview' or 'keywords-explorer-overview', nor any context about prerequisites beyond the schema reference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'extensive filtering, sorting, selection, and aggregation options' and a 'timeout' parameter, hinting at complexity and potential performance considerations. However, it lacks critical behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, pagination behavior, or what happens on errors—significant gaps for a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second provides a procedural note. It's relatively concise but could be more front-loaded with critical usage context. The second sentence, while helpful, feels like a workaround for missing schema documentation rather than integral guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It outlines the high-level purpose but misses essential details: parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, output format, and differentiation from siblings. The note to use 'doc' tool acknowledges the gap but doesn't make this description complete on its own.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely references 'filtering, sorting, selection, and aggregation options' and mentions a 'timeout' parameter, but fails to explain the purpose, syntax, or allowed values for any of the 10 parameters (e.g., 'target', 'select', 'where', 'aggregation'). The directive to use the 'doc' tool shifts responsibility but doesn't add semantic value within this description itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information about all backlinks for a specified URL or domain, with specific filtering/sorting/aggregation options. It uses the verb 'retrieves' with the resource 'backlinks,' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-backlinks-stats' or 'site-explorer-broken-backlinks' beyond mentioning 'all backlinks.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a directive to 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which provides some procedural guidance. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative backlink-related tools (e.g., for stats vs. detailed lists), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the schema note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or potential side effects. The mention of 'filtering and selection options' hints at configurability but lacks specifics on how these affect results or performance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use doc tool first to get the real input schema') is procedural and not directly about the tool's functionality, reducing efficiency. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, but overall structure could be improved by integrating usage context more seamlessly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It outlines the purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, output format, and error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to guide effective tool invocation, but it falls short, especially for a data retrieval tool with multiple filtering options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by implying parameters for 'filtering and selection' (e.g., 'target', 'select', 'where') but does not explain what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they interact. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving most parameters ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves anchor text and associated backlink metrics for a specified domain or URL, with filtering and selection options.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('anchor text and associated backlink metrics'), and scope ('domain or URL'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'site-explorer-all-backlinks' or 'site-explorer-linked-anchors-external' by focusing on anchor text with metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'site-explorer-linked-anchors-internal', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'filtering and selection options' but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'site-explorer-linked-anchors-external' or 'site-explorer-all-backlinks'. The note 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema' is procedural rather than contextual, failing to guide on scenarios or prerequisites for effective use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'customizable filtering, field selection, and aggregation options,' hinting at configurability, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose and features, and the second provides procedural guidance. It's front-loaded with the core function, but the second sentence about using the 'doc tool' is somewhat tangential to the tool's usage context. It avoids fluff but could be more focused on the tool itself.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, output format, behavioral constraints, and differentiation from siblings. The directive to use another tool for schema details suggests the description is insufficient on its own, leaving significant gaps for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It vaguely references 'filtering, field selection, and aggregation options,' which loosely maps to some parameters (e.g., 'where', 'select', 'aggregation'), but doesn't explain any parameter's meaning, syntax, or constraints. With 9 parameters and no schema descriptions, this adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving broken backlinks for a domain/URL with filtering, field selection, and aggregation. It specifies the resource (broken backlinks) and verb (retrieves), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-all-backlinks' or 'site-explorer-backlinks-stats' beyond mentioning 'broken' links.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a directive to 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which provides some procedural guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance compared to alternatives (e.g., vs. 'site-explorer-all-backlinks' for all links), prerequisites, or exclusions. The guidance is minimal and not focused on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., time-series data). For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it does hint at the need to use another tool ('doc') for schema details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose clearly, and the second provides a prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the main function, but the second sentence about using the 'doc' tool feels like a workaround rather than integral guidance, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's concise but could be more self-contained.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, output format, and differentiation from siblings. The mention of using 'doc' for schema hints at missing information, but doesn't fully address the gaps for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'date range and grouping interval,' which loosely corresponds to 'date_from,' 'date_to,' and 'history_grouping,' and 'specified domain or URL' for 'target,' but doesn't explain parameter meanings, formats (e.g., date strings), or constraints. With 4 undocumented parameters, this adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves the historical domain rating data for a specified domain or URL over a defined date range and grouping interval.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('historical domain rating data'), and scope ('domain or URL, date range, grouping interval'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-domain-rating' or 'site-explorer-metrics-history', which appear related, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It includes 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which is a prerequisite but not a contextual when-to-use guideline. There's no indication of when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'site-explorer-domain-rating' for current data or other history tools), nor any exclusions or specific scenarios for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool retrieves data (implying read-only) and hints at segmentation and grouping, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use doc tool first...') is a workaround for poor schema documentation rather than a core tool explanation. The first sentence is front-loaded with key information, but overall structure could be improved by integrating parameter hints more directly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It outlines the core purpose but misses critical details: parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, output format, and differentiation from siblings. The advice to use another tool for schema details indicates inadequate self-contained documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'website or URL,' 'search position ranges,' and 'time interval,' which loosely map to 'target,' 'select' (implied), and 'date_from/date_to/history_grouping,' but it doesn't explain the purpose of 'country,' 'mode,' or 'protocol,' nor does it clarify required vs. optional parameters or expected formats. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving historical data on organic keywords for a website/URL, segmented by search position ranges and grouped by time intervals. It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('historical data'), and scope ('organic keywords'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-organic-keywords' or 'keywords-explorer-volume-history'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance, only advising to 'use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'site-explorer-organic-keywords' for current data or 'keywords-explorer-volume-history' for keyword volume trends), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: one states the purpose clearly, and the other provides a usage note. It's front-loaded with the main function, but the second sentence about the doc tool, while helpful, adds length without enhancing the core understanding of the tool's use. It's concise but could be more focused on the tool itself rather than external dependencies.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits, output format, and differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to aid an AI agent in effective use, but it falls short.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions 'real input schema' via the doc tool but doesn't explain any parameters directly, such as what 'select', 'target', or 'mode' mean. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves internal anchor text data for a given website or URL, detailing how anchor texts are used in links between pages on the same site.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('internal anchor text data'), and scope ('links between pages on the same site'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'site-explorer-anchors' or 'site-explorer-linked-anchors-external', which might cover similar but different scopes, preventing 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a usage note: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This provides some guidance on prerequisites, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'site-explorer-anchors' or 'site-explorer-linked-anchors-external', nor does it specify context or exclusions for its application. The guidance is limited to schema retrieval, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that metrics are 'broken down by country' and for a 'specific date,' but doesn't describe what the output looks like, whether it's read-only or has side effects, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use doc tool first...') is procedural advice rather than core tool explanation, which may not be optimally front-loaded. It's concise but could be more structured to prioritize essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, output format, behavioral traits, and usage context. The directive to use another tool for schema details doesn't compensate for these gaps in the description itself.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't explain any parameters beyond implying 'date' and possibly 'target' (for the website), leaving parameters like 'mode', 'protocol', 'select', and 'volume_mode' completely undocumented. It adds minimal value over the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: providing organic and paid search performance metrics for a website, broken down by country, for a specific date. It specifies the verb ('provides'), resource ('metrics'), and scope ('by country'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-metrics' or 'site-explorer-metrics-history'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a directive to 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which provides some procedural guidance but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given about when this tool is appropriate compared to other site-explorer tools or keywords-explorer tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states this is a retrieval operation (implied read-only) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, data freshness, or what format the historical data returns. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use doc tool first...') feels like a workaround rather than integral guidance. The first sentence is front-loaded with core functionality, but could be more structured to separate purpose from parameter hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It outlines the basic purpose but fails to provide adequate parameter guidance, behavioral context, or output expectations. The instruction to use another tool for schema details highlights rather than solves the completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 9 parameters, the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'domain, URL, or path' (hinting at 'target'), 'date range' (hinting at 'date_from' and 'date_to'), and 'grouping interval' (hinting at 'history_grouping'), but leaves 6 parameters completely unexplained. The instruction to 'Use doc tool first' acknowledges but doesn't resolve this deficiency.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves historical data on key organic and paid search traffic and cost metrics for a specified domain, URL, or path over a selectable date range and grouping interval.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('historical data'), and scope ('organic and paid search traffic and cost metrics'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-metrics' or 'site-explorer-metrics-by-country'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' this is a technical instruction rather than usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other site-explorer tools, or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving data and lists metrics (common keywords, traffic estimations, domain strength), but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose and metrics, the second gives a usage instruction. It's relatively concise but could be more front-loaded; the second sentence about the 'doc tool' might distract from the core functionality. While not verbose, it doesn't maximize clarity efficiently—some details are implied rather than explicit.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (12 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and some metrics but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, and output structure. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly or interpret results, especially for a data retrieval tool with many configuration options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 12 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter semantics: it implies 'target' is a website/URL, 'country' and 'date' are used for filtering, and metrics like keywords and traffic are returned. However, it doesn't explain most parameters (e.g., 'mode', 'order_by', 'protocol', 'where'), their formats, or how they affect results. With low coverage, the description doesn't adequately compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves a list of organic search competitors for a specified website or URL, providing comparative SEO metrics such as common keywords, traffic estimations, and domain strength.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('organic search competitors'), and scope (SEO metrics for a website/URL). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-organic-keywords' or 'rank-tracker-competitors-overview', which prevents 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a usage instruction: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This provides some guidance on prerequisites. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to other 'site-explorer' or 'competitors' tools in the sibling list), and doesn't specify exclusions or contextual triggers. The guidance is minimal and not focused on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering, sorting, and comparing metrics across dates and regions, which hints at functionality, but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose but includes a somewhat tangential instruction about using the 'doc' tool, which may not be essential for understanding the tool's function. While not verbose, it could be more streamlined by integrating the procedural note more naturally or omitting it if not critical to usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (12 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It outlines what data is retrieved but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output structure. For a data retrieval tool with many parameters, more comprehensive guidance is needed to ensure effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 12 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description lists general capabilities like filtering, sorting, and comparing metrics, but does not explain specific parameters such as 'mode', 'order_by', 'volume_mode', or 'where'. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed organic keyword data for domains, URLs, or paths, specifying metrics like rankings, search intent, SERP features, traffic, and CPC. It uses specific verbs ('retrieves') and resources ('organic keyword data'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-keywords-history' or 'keywords-explorer-overview', which may have overlapping functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a directive to 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which provides some procedural guidance but does not offer context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or comparisons to sibling tools are provided, leaving usage unclear relative to other keyword or site exploration tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'retrieves historical data' and grouping by time interval, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient to inform an agent about operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: one states the purpose, and another gives a prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the core function, but the second sentence about using 'doc tool' is somewhat tangential and could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it's concise but not optimally structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or detailed parameter usage. The mention of using 'doc tool' hints at missing schema info but doesn't fully address the gaps for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references 'domain, URL, or section' (hinting at 'target'), 'time interval' (hinting at 'date_from'/'date_to'), and 'grouping' (hinting at 'history_grouping'), but doesn't explain the 4 other parameters (country, mode, protocol) or provide format/constraint details. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves historical data about pages from a specified domain, URL, or section of a site, grouped by a chosen time interval.' It specifies the action (retrieves), resource (historical data about pages), and scope (domain/URL/section with time grouping). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-keywords-history' or 'site-explorer-refdomains-history' which also retrieve historical data but for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This suggests a prerequisite but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other site-explorer history tools) or what contexts it's suited for. No explicit when/when-not guidance or sibling comparisons are included.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'retrieves' (implying a read operation) and 'flexible filtering, selection, and sorting', but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it does hint at some capabilities like filtering and sorting.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise with two sentences, but the second sentence 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema' is procedural clutter that doesn't belong in the description—it should be in documentation or tool metadata. The first sentence is informative but could be more front-loaded with key details. Overall, it's somewhat efficient but includes unnecessary elements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or detailed parameter usage. While it states the purpose, it lacks sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively without external documentation. The instruction to use another tool for schema details highlights this inadequacy.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description vaguely mentions 'flexible filtering, selection, and sorting' but doesn't explain what parameters like 'history', 'mode', 'order_by', 'protocol', 'select', 'target', 'timeout', or 'where' actually mean or how to use them. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves detailed information about referring domains that link to a specified target domain or URL.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('referring domains'), and scope ('link to a specified target domain or URL'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-linkeddomains' or 'site-explorer-all-backlinks', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'flexible filtering, selection, and sorting of backlink-related metrics' but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'site-explorer-linkeddomains' or 'site-explorer-all-backlinks'. The instruction 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema' is procedural rather than contextual guidance on tool selection. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'historical data' and 'customizable grouping and analysis scope,' which implies read-only analysis, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's a read operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or output format. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, making it inadequate for informed use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose with key details, and the second provides a usage note. It's front-loaded with the main function but includes an extra sentence about using another tool, which, while helpful, adds length without enhancing the core description. This structure is acceptable but not optimally concise, as the second sentence could be integrated or omitted if not critical.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameters but lacks details on behavior, output, error handling, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively, making this description insufficient for the tool's requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds some semantics by mentioning 'target (domain or URL),' 'date range,' 'grouping,' and 'analysis scope,' which loosely map to parameters like 'target,' 'date_from/date_to,' and 'history_grouping/mode.' However, it doesn't explain the purpose or format of all parameters (e.g., 'protocol'), leaving many undocumented. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: providing historical data on referring domains linking to a target over a date range, with customizable grouping and analysis scope. It specifies the verb ('Provides historical data'), resource ('referring domains'), and scope ('over a defined date range'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-refdomains' (which likely provides current data) and 'site-explorer-backlinks-stats' (which might focus on statistics rather than historical trends). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'site-explorer-domain-rating-history'), keeping it from 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a usage guideline: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which suggests a prerequisite step. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'site-explorer-refdomains' for current data or other historical tools like 'site-explorer-metrics-history'), and doesn't specify exclusions or contexts where it's preferred. This minimal guidance is insufficient for clear decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'detailed SEO metrics' and 'support for comparison between two dates and flexible filtering', but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. However, the second sentence about using the 'doc tool' is somewhat awkwardly tacked on and doesn't flow naturally from the functional description. It could be better integrated or placed elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. While it mentions SEO metrics and comparison features, it lacks sufficient detail for an agent to understand the full scope and limitations of this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so all 12 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'specified website or URL' (hinting at 'target'), 'comparison between two dates' (hinting at 'date' and 'date_compared'), and 'flexible filtering' (hinting at 'where'), but provides no details about the other 9 parameters like 'country', 'mode', 'order_by', 'protocol', 'select', 'timeout', 'volume_mode', or 'limit'. This doesn't adequately compensate for the schema coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns a list of the top-performing pages for a specified website or URL, including detailed SEO metrics.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('top-performing pages'), and scope ('SEO metrics'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-pages-by-traffic' or 'site-explorer-pages-history' that might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'support for comparison between two dates and flexible filtering' but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'site-explorer-pages-by-traffic' or 'site-explorer-pages-history'. The instruction 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema' is a technical prerequisite, not contextual guidance on when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only behavior) but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. The mention of using the 'doc tool' hints at complexity but doesn't clarify behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second gives a procedural note. It's front-loaded with the core function, but the second sentence about the 'doc tool' might be better placed elsewhere (e.g., in usage guidelines). It's concise but could be more structured to separate purpose from instructions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error cases, or how parameters interact (e.g., grouping effects). The tool likely returns historical data series, but without output schema or description details, an agent would struggle to use it correctly beyond basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions 'time period and grouping,' which loosely maps to parameters like date_from, date_to, and history_grouping, but it doesn't explain any parameters in detail (e.g., what 'mode' or 'volume_mode' mean). This adds minimal value beyond the schema, insufficient to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving historical total organic search volume, traffic, and traffic value for a site/URL over a time period with grouping. It specifies the resource (site/URL) and metrics (volume, traffic, value), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from similar siblings like 'site-explorer-keywords-history' or 'site-explorer-metrics-history', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a directive to 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which provides some procedural guidance but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given about when this tool is appropriate compared to other site-explorer tools (e.g., 'site-explorer-metrics-history'), and there are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'retrieves' (implying read-only) and hints at data grouping, but fails to cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides a usage note. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, but the second sentence feels like a workaround rather than integrated guidance. While not verbose, it could be more structured by embedding the schema note within the purpose explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (historical data retrieval with grouping), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits like rate limits, and the structure of returned data. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured support, this leaves too much undefined for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'domain or URL' (hinting at 'target'), 'date range' (hinting at 'date_from' and 'date_to'), and 'time interval' (hinting at 'history_grouping'), but does not specify data formats (e.g., date strings like YYYY-MM-DD), allowed values for 'history_grouping', or whether 'date_to' is optional. With 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, this partial mapping is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves the historical URL rating data for a specified domain or URL over a defined date range, grouped by a chosen time interval.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('historical URL rating data'), and scope ('domain or URL', 'date range', 'time interval'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-domain-rating-history' or 'site-explorer-metrics-history', which might offer similar historical data for different metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a usage note: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This provides some guidance on prerequisites, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other 'site-explorer-*' tools for historical data) or any exclusions. Without explicit context on when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings, the guidance is incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function (retrieving metrics for analysis) but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure, pagination). For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, and the second provides a necessary usage instruction. There is no wasted text, and both sentences earn their place by addressing core needs (what it does and how to proceed). However, it could be slightly improved by integrating the instruction more seamlessly, but it remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It explains the tool's purpose but fails to address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or output details. The instruction to use the doc tool is helpful but doesn't substitute for a self-contained description. For a tool in this context, more comprehensive information is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters (e.g., what 'select', 'target', 'mode', or 'order_by' mean), leaving all parameters undocumented. This forces reliance on the doc tool, but the description itself adds no semantic value beyond that directive, resulting in poor parameter guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving internal link metrics for analysis of page interconnections and identifying pages with the most internal links. It specifies the resource (site/page) and the type of data (internal link metrics), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-all-backlinks' or 'site-explorer-external-links'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'site-explorer-linked-anchors-internal', which might be a similar tool, slightly reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a usage guideline: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which provides a prerequisite step. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'site-explorer-best-by-external-links' or other site-explorer tools), no context on when-not to use it, and no mention of alternatives beyond the doc tool. This leaves the agent with minimal direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool provides metrics 'as of a given date' and has customization options, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use doc tool first to get the real input schema') is somewhat redundant as it references external documentation without adding intrinsic value to the tool's purpose. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality, but could be more streamlined by integrating the parameter mention more effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, full parameter explanations, output format, and differentiation from siblings. While it hints at prerequisites, it does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional external guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description lists some parameters ('search scope, protocol, country, and search volume mode') but does not explain their semantics, valid values, or how they affect the output. It also omits details on 'target' and 'date' (the required parameters) and 'mode'. This insufficiently compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Provides SEO performance metrics for a specified domain, URL, or site section as of a given date.' It specifies the verb ('provides'), resource ('SEO performance metrics'), and scope ('domain, URL, or site section'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-metrics-by-country' or 'site-explorer-metrics-history', which likely offer similar metrics in different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes an implied usage guideline: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' suggesting a prerequisite step. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to sibling tools like 'site-explorer-metrics-by-country' for country-specific metrics or 'site-explorer-metrics-history' for historical trends), leaving usage context partially unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 retrieval and ranking by traffic but omits critical details like pagination, rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about using the 'doc tool' adds necessary context but feels tacked on, slightly disrupting flow. Overall, it's concise but could be more integrated and informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameter usage, return format, error conditions, and behavioral constraints, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use this tool effectively in a complex sibling environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references 'country' and 'protocol' without explaining their roles, formats, or constraints. Key parameters like 'mode' and 'volume_mode' are entirely unaddressed, failing to provide meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves pages ranked by estimated organic search traffic, specifying the resource (pages) and key action (retrieval with ranking). It distinguishes from siblings like 'site-explorer-top-pages' by emphasizing traffic-based ranking, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a directive to 'use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which provides some procedural guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use criteria, alternatives, or context for choosing this tool over siblings like 'site-explorer-top-pages' or 'site-explorer-pages-history.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention potential limitations such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, which is efficient. However, the second sentence ('Use doc tool first to get the real input schema') is somewhat redundant and could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it is brief but includes an awkward procedural note.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions the parameters ('keyword,' 'country,' 'date range') but does not explain their semantics, formats (e.g., date format, country codes), or constraints (e.g., required vs. optional). It adds some meaning by naming the parameters but fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieves historical search volume data'), resource ('for a specified keyword'), and scope ('within a given country and date range'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'keywords-explorer-overview' or 'keywords-explorer-volume-by-country' by focusing on historical data rather than current or country-specific volumes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a directive to 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which provides some procedural guidance but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'keywords-explorer-volume-by-country' for current data or 'site-explorer-keywords-history' for site-specific history). No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read-only operation ('Retrieves'), which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the returned list includes (e.g., format, fields). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, as it doesn't fully inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated in the first sentence and a usage note in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly improved by integrating the usage note more seamlessly, but overall, it's efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a retrieval operation with 1 parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication, response format) and doesn't fully explain the parameter semantics. While it states the purpose and a prerequisite, it doesn't provide enough context for the agent to use the tool effectively without additional guesswork.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions 'using the project's unique identifier,' which clarifies that 'project_id' refers to a project identifier, adding some meaning. However, it doesn't explain what a valid 'project_id' is (e.g., format, source, or constraints), so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves the list of competitors associated with a specific Rank Tracker project in Ahrefs, using the project's unique identifier.' It specifies the verb ('Retrieves'), resource ('list of competitors'), and context ('Rank Tracker project in Ahrefs'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rank-tracker-competitors-overview' or 'site-explorer-organic-competitors', which might offer similar functionality, so 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance by stating 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which implies a prerequisite step. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other competitor-related tools in the sibling list) or any exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, making it adequate but with gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a read operation ('returns an overview') and lists output metrics, but it doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether the data is real-time or historical. The mention of using the 'doc tool first' hints at complexity but doesn't fully explain the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a practical note in the second. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the second sentence about using the 'doc tool' could be more integrated or clarified. Overall, it's efficient with two sentences that serve distinct purposes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at a prerequisite, but it lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, output format, and differentiation from alternatives. This makes it inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters (country, date, keyword, select, top_positions) are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'keyword and country' and implies 'date' and 'top_positions' through context like 'top search results,' but it doesn't explain the 'select' parameter or provide details on formats, constraints, or default values. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns an overview of the top search results (SERP) for a specified keyword and country, including detailed metrics about each result like position, backlinks, traffic, domain rating, and related keywords.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('overview of top search results'), and scope ('for a specified keyword and country'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'keywords-explorer-overview' or 'rank-tracker-overview'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance with 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which implies a prerequisite step. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'keywords-explorer-overview' or 'rank-tracker-overview'), nor does it mention any exclusions or specific contexts for use beyond the keyword and country parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention potential limitations such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose, leaving significant 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The second sentence provides a usage note. There is no unnecessary verbiage, and both sentences earn their place by adding value. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the usage note more seamlessly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, full parameter semantics, and output expectations. While it states the purpose and a prerequisite, it does not adequately address the gaps left by missing structured data, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'domain or URL' and 'specific date,' which loosely map to 'target' and 'date' parameters, but does not explain the 'protocol' parameter or provide details on format, constraints, or examples. The description adds some meaning but insufficiently covers the three parameters, especially with no schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves the domain rating and related metrics for a specified domain or URL as of a specific date.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('domain rating and related metrics'), and scope ('for a specified domain or URL as of a specific date'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-metrics' or 'site-explorer-domain-rating-history', which may offer overlapping or related functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a usage guideline: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This implies a prerequisite step but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'site-explorer-metrics' for broader metrics or 'site-explorer-domain-rating-history' for historical data). No explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'powerful filtering and comparison capabilities' and references using another tool for schema details, but lacks critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The second sentence provides a practical guideline without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or use cases, but overall, it avoids verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (12 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, expected outputs, error conditions, and behavioral constraints. While it hints at filtering and comparison, it does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional documentation or trial-and-error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 12 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain any parameters beyond implying filtering and comparison capabilities, which loosely relates to parameters like 'where', 'order_by', or 'mode'. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns detailed metrics about pages on a specified site or URL that are ranking in paid search results, including traffic, keyword data, ad presence, and changes over time, with powerful filtering and comparison capabilities.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('pages'), and scope ('paid search results'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-organic-keywords' or 'site-explorer-pages-by-traffic', which likely focus on organic metrics or broader traffic data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a usage guideline: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which implies a prerequisite step. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'site-explorer-organic-keywords' for organic vs. paid data), nor does it specify exclusions or detailed context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of keywords, JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and usage prerequisites but misses behavioral details (e.g., return format, errors) and parameter semantics. For a tool in this context, more information is needed to fully guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions), and the description doesn't add any semantic meaning for the 'project_id' parameter beyond implying it's required. It doesn't explain what a project ID is, how to obtain it, its format, or valid ranges. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly understood.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('keywords associated with a specific project in Ahrefs' Rank Tracker'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'management-projects' (which likely lists projects) by focusing on keywords for a specific project. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from keyword-related siblings (e.g., 'keywords-explorer-matching-terms'), slightly limiting clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
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: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This directly addresses prerequisites and workflow, helping the agent understand the required sequence of actions. It doesn't mention alternatives, but the clear prerequisite instruction is sufficient for a top score in this context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. The mention of using 'doc tool' for schema hints at potential complexity but doesn't clarify behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by usage guidance. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimally complete for a simple retrieval tool. It covers purpose and usage but lacks behavioral context like response format or error handling, leaving gaps for an agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. It implies potential hidden parameters via the 'doc tool' reference, but doesn't elaborate, keeping the baseline high due to zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Retrieves a list of site audit projects available in the system,' which specifies the verb (retrieves) and resource (site audit projects). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on site audit projects, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list/retrieval tools like 'management-projects' or 'site-explorer' tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This clearly indicates a prerequisite step and directs the agent to an alternative tool for schema information, offering specific when-to-use advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool provides 'full documentation' and input schemas, which implies a read-only, non-destructive behavior. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the overall purpose, and the second provides critical usage instructions. Every sentence earns its place by delivering essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or error handling. For a documentation-retrieval tool, this is sufficient though not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('tool'), documented as 'The name of the tool.' The description adds context by explaining this parameter is used to 'get the input schema for any other tool,' clarifying its purpose beyond the schema's basic type information. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, this provides adequate semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Full documentation for Ahrefs tools' specifies it provides comprehensive documentation, and 'You must use this tool to get the input schema for any other tool' explicitly defines its function as retrieving input schemas for sibling tools. This distinguishes it from all listed siblings, which perform data analysis or management tasks rather than documentation retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'You must use this tool to get the input schema for any other tool' directly instructs when to use it (before invoking other tools) and implies when not to use it (for actual data operations). This clearly differentiates it from all sibling tools, which are for executing operations rather than schema discovery.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ahrefs-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ahrefs/ahrefs-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ahrefs/ahrefs-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ahrefs-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ahrefs/ahrefs-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ahrefs/ahrefs-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ahrefs/ahrefs-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server