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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.