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 the tool 'gets' results, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's a live query (suggesting real-time data), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Get organic search results for a keyword in specified search engine.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, uses clear language, and avoids redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., what data is included in 'organic search results'), behavioral aspects like real-time vs. cached data, or error conditions. For a tool that likely returns rich SERP data, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to use it 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 description mentions 'keyword' and 'specified search engine,' which align with two parameters, but doesn't add meaningful context beyond the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., defaults, constraints, formats). The description provides no additional semantics, such as how parameters interact (e.g., 'depth' vs. 'max_crawl_pages'), so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.

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: 'Get organic search results for a keyword in specified search engine.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('organic search results'), and key parameters ('keyword,' 'search engine'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'serp_youtube_organic_live_advanced,' which might cause confusion in tool selection.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, such as 'serp_youtube_organic_live_advanced' for YouTube searches or other SERP-related tools. This lack of context could lead to incorrect tool selection in complex scenarios.

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