Ahrefs MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.