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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.