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 states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or potential side effects. The mention of 'filtering and selection options' hints at configurability but lacks specifics on how these affect results or performance.

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 to get the real input schema') is procedural and not directly about the tool's functionality, reducing efficiency. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, but overall 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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It outlines the purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, output format, and error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to guide effective tool invocation, but it falls short, especially for a data retrieval tool with multiple filtering options.

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 input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by implying parameters for 'filtering and selection' (e.g., 'target', 'select', 'where') but does not explain what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they interact. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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 anchor text and associated backlink metrics for a specified domain or URL, with filtering and selection options.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('anchor text and associated backlink metrics'), and scope ('domain or URL'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'site-explorer-all-backlinks' or 'site-explorer-linked-anchors-external' by focusing on anchor text with metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'site-explorer-linked-anchors-internal', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 'filtering and selection options' but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'site-explorer-linked-anchors-external' or 'site-explorer-all-backlinks'. The note 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema' is procedural rather than contextual, failing to guide on scenarios or prerequisites for effective use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.