SEO Crawler MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read-only listing operation but doesn't mention critical behaviors such as whether results are paginated, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and included data, the second adds optional filtering. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundant or vague language, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., format of 'descriptions, priorities, and fix recommendations'), potential limitations, or error handling. For a tool that lists data with multiple attributes, more context is needed to use it 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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema (including enums and descriptions). The description adds marginal value by mentioning filtering options but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all available SEO analysis queries with descriptions, priorities, and fix recommendations.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('SEO analysis queries') with details about what information is included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'query_seo_data' or 'analyze_seo', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides implied usage guidance by mentioning optional filtering by category or priority level, suggesting when to use these parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'analyze_seo' or 'run_seo_audit', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity.

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