Guides you through AccuRanker screens and the sign-in link so you can add keywords and check rankings; call this first for step-by-step help.
How to work in AccuRanker (add keywords and check your rankings): its screens and the sign-in link. Call this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | No | What you want done in AccuRanker, in your words. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content scope (screens, sign-in link, adding keywords, checking rankings) but never states that this is a read-only informational call, whether authentication is needed before using the sign-in link, or what the response looks like given there is no output schema.
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?
Two compact sentences with no filler, and the subject (what the guide covers) is front-loaded. The trailing "Call this first" is the most actionable line but sits at the end rather than leading.
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?
For a guidance tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the topic but omits how the guide relates to the sibling UI tools (status, open, click, type) that presumably follow it, and what an agent should do after reading the guide.
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 schema already documents the single optional `task` parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of "add keywords and check your rankings" loosely hints at the kinds of tasks to pass, but adds no format or phrasing guidance beyond the schema text.
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 frames this as a guide covering AccuRanker's screens, the sign-in link, and the keyword/ranking workflow, which distinguishes it from the action siblings (open, click, type, read). It stops short of stating exactly what the tool returns (documentation text vs. a URL), so it is clear but not precise about output.
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?
"Call this first" gives explicit ordering guidance, which is valuable against six action-oriented siblings. It does not say when not to use it (e.g., once the workflow is already underway) or name alternatives, so it falls short of full alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.