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 mentions that metrics are 'broken down by country' and for a 'specific date,' but doesn't describe what the output looks like, whether it's read-only or has side effects, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context.

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 brief with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use doc tool first...') is procedural advice rather than core tool explanation, which may not be optimally front-loaded. It's concise but could be more structured to prioritize essential information.

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 (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, output format, behavioral traits, and usage context. The directive to use another tool for schema details doesn't compensate for these gaps in the description itself.

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 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't explain any parameters beyond implying 'date' and possibly 'target' (for the website), leaving parameters like 'mode', 'protocol', 'select', and 'volume_mode' completely undocumented. It adds minimal value over the bare schema.

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: providing organic and paid search performance metrics for a website, broken down by country, for a specific date. It specifies the verb ('provides'), resource ('metrics'), and scope ('by country'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-metrics' or 'site-explorer-metrics-history'.

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 but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given about when this tool is appropriate compared to other site-explorer tools or keywords-explorer tools in the sibling list.

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