DataForSEO MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what 'popularity data' entails (e.g., metrics like search volume, trends). The phrase 'provide you with' is vague, and there's no mention of output format or potential errors.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'keyword popularity data' includes, how results are structured, or limitations (e.g., the 5-keyword maximum is only in the schema). For a data-fetching tool with rich parameters, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'location-specific' relates to 'location_name'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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: 'provide you with location-specific keyword popularity data from DataForSEO Trends.' It specifies the verb ('provide'), resource ('keyword popularity data'), and scope ('location-specific'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kw_data_dfs_trends_demography' or 'kw_data_dfs_trends_explore' beyond mentioning 'subregion interests' in the name.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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