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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.