Website Builder MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'generates' components, implying a creation/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies existing data, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or produces output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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—a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, 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 (3 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and behavioral context, which are crucial for a generation tool. The description does not compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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 33% (only 'props' has a description), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'navbar, footer, etc.', which aligns with the 'type' enum, adding context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain 'props' or 'style' parameters, leaving them partially undocumented. Baseline is adjusted due to low coverage, but the description adds some value.

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 verb ('generate') and resource ('HTML component'), specifying example types like navbar and footer. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on component generation rather than website/page creation or listing, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'add_page' which might also involve components.

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 'add_page' or 'create_website'. The description implies usage for generating specific HTML components, but lacks context on prerequisites, dependencies, 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.