DataForSEO MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it offers no information on what data is returned, whether it's real-time or cached, rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that appears to query live data.

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 no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for effective tool use.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what data is returned, the tool's behavior, or how it integrates with sibling tools. This gap makes it inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.

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 input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining why location_name or language_code are required or how they affect the results. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description fails to compensate with any contextual insights.

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 you specify' is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name without specifying what type of data is provided or how it differs from sibling tools like serp_youtube_video_comments_live_advanced or serp_youtube_video_subtitles_live_advanced. It lacks a specific verb and resource scope, failing to clarify the tool's unique function.

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, leaving the agent to infer usage from the input schema alone. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple parameters and sibling tools in the same domain.

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