Ahrefs MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'customizable filtering, field selection, and aggregation options,' hinting at configurability, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient.

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: the first states the purpose and features, and the second provides procedural guidance. It's front-loaded with the core function, but the second sentence about using the 'doc tool' is somewhat tangential to the tool's usage context. It avoids fluff but could be more focused on the tool itself.

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, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, output format, behavioral constraints, and differentiation from siblings. The directive to use another tool for schema details suggests the description is insufficient on its own, leaving significant gaps for effective tool invocation.

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 vaguely references 'filtering, field selection, and aggregation options,' which loosely maps to some parameters (e.g., 'where', 'select', 'aggregation'), but doesn't explain any parameter's meaning, syntax, or constraints. With 9 parameters and no schema descriptions, this adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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: retrieving broken backlinks for a domain/URL with filtering, field selection, and aggregation. It specifies the resource (broken backlinks) and verb (retrieves), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-all-backlinks' or 'site-explorer-backlinks-stats' beyond mentioning 'broken' links.

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 provides some procedural guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance compared to alternatives (e.g., vs. 'site-explorer-all-backlinks' for all links), prerequisites, or exclusions. The guidance is minimal and not focused on tool selection.

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