DataForSEO MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'utility tool' that 'gets list of available locations', which implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what format the list returns. The description is minimal and lacks necessary operational 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 a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and its relationship to another tool. It's appropriately sized without unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more specific about the resource scope to improve clarity while maintaining conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, structure), nor does it provide behavioral context needed for proper use. The minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding how to effectively invoke and interpret results from 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (country_iso_code, location_type, location_name) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states the tool's purpose as getting a list of available locations, but it's vague about what kind of locations (Google Ads locations) and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'serp_locations' or 'serp_youtube_locations'. It mentions being a utility for 'kw_data_google_ads_search_volume', which provides some context but lacks specificity about the resource scope.

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 mentions this is a utility for 'kw_data_google_ads_search_volume', implying it should be used in that context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'serp_locations' or 'serp_youtube_locations'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for choosing this tool.

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