Ahrefs MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.