Analyze query complexity by breaking down competitive factors and evidence. Use to understand why a search query is difficult.
Конкурентность запросов с полным разбором по факторам и доказательствами. Использовать, когда нужно понять, ПОЧЕМУ запрос сложный.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| queries | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry transparency burden. It mentions 'with full breakdown by factors and evidence', giving some insight into output, but does not disclose side effects (likely read-only), data source, complexity, or rate limits. It is a read-like analysis tool, but without annotations, the absence leaves gaps.
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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the purpose, then the usage guidance. No fluff, each sentence earns its place.
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 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain input structure, output format, or how parameters relate, leaving an agent guessing on how to invoke it correctly.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides no definition of 'query', 'region', or 'queries', and does not clarify that 'queries' is an array or how multiple queries are handled. The description is in Russian and may add language context, but for parameter semantics it adds nothing.
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 states the tool analyzes query competitiveness (Конкурентность запросов) and provides factor breakdown and evidence, which is a specific verb+resource. It explains when to use it (to understand why a query is complex), but does not clearly differentiate from siblings like research_keywords or get_serp_results, which may also relate to competition.
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?
It says 'Use when you need to understand WHY a query is complex', which gives some usage context, but does not specify when NOT to use it or list alternatives. There is no guidance on choosing between this and similar tools like get_keyword_metrics or research_keywords.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.