SiteAudit MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the specific checks performed (e.g., color contrast hints limited without rendering) and the return format (score and findings), enhancing the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a bulleted list of findings that efficiently details the tool's output without redundancy. Every sentence and bullet point adds specific value, making it 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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and the presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is complete enough. It clearly explains what the tool does and what it returns, compensating adequately for any gaps without needing to detail return values explicitly.

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 100% with one parameter ('url'), documented as 'URL to audit'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Run WCAG accessibility checks') and resource ('on a URL'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'performance_audit' or 'seo_audit' by focusing exclusively on accessibility compliance. It explicitly lists the types of findings returned, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 for accessibility testing on URLs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'full_audit' or 'lighthouse_audit', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It offers some context by listing the checks performed, but lacks direct guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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