DataForSEO 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'utility tool' to 'get list', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 that front-loads the key information: it's a utility tool for a specific purpose. There's no wasted text, and it directly communicates the essential function. However, the misspelling 'availible' slightly detracts from polish, but doesn't hinder understanding.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of its purpose and context. However, it lacks details on what the output looks like (e.g., format of the list, example values), which would be helpful for an AI agent to use it effectively. The simplicity of the tool means the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional value is required, and it doesn't contradict or confuse the parameter-less nature.

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 tool's purpose: 'Utility tool for ai_keyword_data_search_volume to get list of availible locations and languages'. It specifies the verb ('get list'), resource ('locations and languages'), and context ('for ai_keyword_data_search_volume'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'ai_optimization_llm_mentions_locations_and_languages', which appears to serve a similar utility function for a different parent tool.

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 implies usage by mentioning it's a utility tool 'for ai_keyword_data_search_volume', suggesting it should be used in conjunction with that specific sibling tool. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other location/language tools in the list) or any prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks detailed alternatives or exclusions.

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