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 the tool builds a website, implying a creation/mutation operation, but doesn't specify what 'build' entails (e.g., generates static files, deploys to a server, requires specific permissions, or has side effects). No information about error handling, rate limits, or output format is included, leaving significant 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the website is built, error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool that likely generates significant output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how Excel data maps to website content, what 'template' choices imply, or format expectations). It relies entirely on the schema for parameter details.

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 ('Build website') and the resource ('from Excel data file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'add_page' or 'list_websites' by specifying it creates a website from Excel data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_website' which might be a more general version.

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 'create_website' or 'generate_component'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an Excel file), exclusions, or comparative use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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