Opengraph io MCP

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 retrieves OpenGraph data but doesn't describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it makes network requests, handles errors, returns structured data, or has rate limits. For a tool with 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, 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 tool's complexity (simple retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what OpenGraph data includes, the format of the return value, or potential errors. For a tool with no structured output or behavioral hints, 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'url' documented as 'URL of the webpage to analyze meta tags from'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only mentions 'a given URL' without details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and resource ('OpenGraph data') with the target ('from a given URL'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'getOgExtract' or 'getOgScrapeData' by focusing specifically on OpenGraph data retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 'getOgExtract' or 'getOgScrapeData'. It states what the tool does but offers no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction for tool selection among similar siblings.

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