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 mentions the tool returns a crawl ID and output path, which adds some context, but fails to cover critical aspects such as whether this is a long-running operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'comprehensive SEO data' entails. The use of 'Crawlee HttpCrawler' hints at technical implementation but doesn't clarify behavioral traits for the agent.

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 front-loaded and concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and return values without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by stating the action and output, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a crawling tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It specifies the action and return values but lacks details on output format, error handling, or operational constraints. Without annotations, it should do more to guide the agent on usage and behavior, but it meets a minimum viable level for understanding the tool's basic function.

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 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or providing usage examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage by the schema alone.

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 action ('Crawl a website and extract comprehensive SEO data') and resource ('website'), specifying the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the crawling aspect, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like 'analyze_seo' or 'list_seo_queries'.

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 like 'analyze_seo' or 'list_seo_queries'. The description implies usage for crawling and extracting SEO data but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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