pageguard-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 disclosure. It successfully documents the return value structure ('ComplianceReport with risk score...'), authentication requirements ('PAGEGUARD_API_KEY env var'), and scope of analysis ('Detects tracking technologies...'). Minor gap: does not mention rate limits, idempotency, or cache behavior.

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?

Four sentences each earn their place: (1) core purpose, (2) detection capabilities, (3) return structure, (4) authentication. Information is front-loaded with the primary action in the first sentence. No redundant or filler content.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description adequately compensates by explaining the return format and authentication mechanism. The single parameter is sufficiently documented in the schema. Minor deduction for not mentioning potential side effects (e.g., network requests to target URL) or prerequisites.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('The full URL to scan...'). The description mentions 'live website URL' but adds no additional semantic detail (format constraints, validation rules) beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score 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 opens with a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('live website URL') targeting 'privacy compliance issues.' The phrase 'live website URL' effectively distinguishes this from sibling tool 'pageguard_scan_local' (implying local files), while 'scan' differentiates from 'pageguard_generate_docs'.

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 clear context by specifying 'live website URL' and 'actual deployed site,' implicitly guiding users to choose this over 'scan_local' for local files. However, it does not explicitly state 'when-not' rules or explicitly name sibling alternatives for direct comparison.

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