Website Builder MCP Server

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 states this is an 'Add' operation (implying creation/mutation), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate page names, or what the response looks like. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loading the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place - 'Add' (action), 'new page' (what), 'to existing website' (context). There's zero waste or redundancy in this minimal description.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after adding the page, what format the content should be in, how to verify the page was added successfully, or any error conditions. The agent would need to guess about many operational aspects of this tool.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how pageName relates to title), doesn't clarify the 'layout' parameter's purpose or options, and doesn't provide examples of valid content formats.

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 ('Add a new page') and the resource ('to existing website'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_website' (which creates entire sites) and 'list_websites' (which only lists), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'generate_component' or 'build_from_excel'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_component' or 'build_from_excel'. It mentions 'existing website' which implies a prerequisite (the website must already exist), but doesn't specify how to check that or what happens if it doesn't exist. No explicit when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.

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