DataForSEO MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does at a high level, omitting critical details such as whether it's a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness (implied by 'live' in the name but not explained), or what the output format looks like (no output schema). This leaves the agent guessing about operational constraints.

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 vague sentence that under-specifies the tool's function, failing to front-load key information. While concise, it lacks substance—every sentence should earn its place, but this one provides minimal value, making it inefficient rather than appropriately sized.

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 does not address what data is returned (e.g., comment text, timestamps, metrics), how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., how 'location_name' affects comment retrieval) or provide usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'provides data on the video comments you specify' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'serp_youtube_video_comments_live_advanced' without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'fetch', 'analyze', 'retrieve') and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'serp_youtube_video_info_live_advanced' or 'serp_youtube_video_subtitles_live_advanced', which also provide video-related data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it fails to reference sibling tools (e.g., 'serp_youtube_video_info_live_advanced' for general video info or 'serp_youtube_organic_live_advanced' for search results), leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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