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. However, it fails to describe key traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output entails (e.g., performance scores, audits). This omission makes it inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.

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 sentence that is appropriately sized and front-loaded, but it lacks structure and could be more informative. While concise, it doesn't earn its place fully by providing actionable details, making it somewhat under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 (likely involving web performance audits), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., Lighthouse scores, metrics) or behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'enable_javascript' affects the audit or what 'custom_js' is used for. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 states the tool is 'based on Google's open-source Lighthouse project for measuring the quality of web pages and web apps,' which provides some context but is vague about the specific action. It doesn't clearly state what the tool does (e.g., run a Lighthouse audit, generate performance reports) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'on_page_content_parsing' or 'on_page_instant_pages,' making it tautological by restating the name's implication without concrete details.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools available (e.g., for SEO, backlinks, content analysis), the lack of usage guidelines leaves the agent guessing about its specific application.

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