Ahrefs MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'detailed SEO metrics' and 'support for comparison between two dates and flexible filtering', but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, 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 reasonably concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. However, the second sentence about using the 'doc tool' is somewhat awkwardly tacked on and doesn't flow naturally from the functional description. It could be better integrated or placed elsewhere.

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 (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. While it mentions SEO metrics and comparison features, it lacks sufficient detail for an agent to understand the full scope and limitations of this tool.

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 0% description coverage, so all 12 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'specified website or URL' (hinting at 'target'), 'comparison between two dates' (hinting at 'date' and 'date_compared'), and 'flexible filtering' (hinting at 'where'), but provides no details about the other 9 parameters like 'country', 'mode', 'order_by', 'protocol', 'select', 'timeout', 'volume_mode', or 'limit'. This doesn't adequately compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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: 'Returns a list of the top-performing pages for a specified website or URL, including detailed SEO metrics.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('top-performing pages'), and scope ('SEO metrics'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-pages-by-traffic' or 'site-explorer-pages-history' that 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 'support for comparison between two dates and flexible filtering' but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'site-explorer-pages-by-traffic' or 'site-explorer-pages-history'. The instruction 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema' is a technical prerequisite, not contextual guidance on when this tool is appropriate.

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