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 doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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: one states the purpose clearly, and the other provides a usage note. It's front-loaded with the main function, but the second sentence about the doc tool, while helpful, adds length without enhancing the core understanding of the tool's use. It's concise but could be more focused on the tool itself rather than external dependencies.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits, output format, and differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to aid an AI agent in effective use, but it falls short.

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%, meaning none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions 'real input schema' via the doc tool but doesn't explain any parameters directly, such as what 'select', 'target', or 'mode' mean. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely undefined.

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 internal anchor text data for a given website or URL, detailing how anchor texts are used in links between pages on the same site.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('internal anchor text data'), and scope ('links between pages on the same site'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'site-explorer-anchors' or 'site-explorer-linked-anchors-external', which might cover similar but different scopes, preventing a perfect score.

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 usage note: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This provides some guidance on prerequisites, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'site-explorer-anchors' or 'site-explorer-linked-anchors-external', nor does it specify context or exclusions for its application. The guidance is limited to schema retrieval, not tool selection.

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