SEO Crawler MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'runs 25+ SQL queries' and returns a 'structured report', which gives some insight into computational intensity and output format. However, it lacks critical details like execution time, resource requirements, error handling, or whether it modifies data (though 'analyze' suggests read-only).

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though the second sentence could be slightly more streamlined. Every phrase adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and returns. However, it lacks details about the report structure, error conditions, or performance characteristics that would help an agent use it effectively, especially given the computational intensity implied by '25+ SQL queries'.

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%, providing good documentation for all parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'critical issues, content problems, technical SEO issues, security vulnerabilities, and optimization opportunities', which loosely maps to the 'includeCategories' enum values. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide usage examples beyond what the schema offers.

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 with specific verbs ('analyze SEO data', 'detect issues', 'returns structured report') and resources ('completed crawl', '25+ SQL queries'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on post-crawl analysis rather than listing queries, querying data, or running audits.

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 implies usage context ('from a completed crawl') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_seo_audit' or 'query_seo_data'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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