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 this: it details the scanning process (HEAD requests, concurrent checks up to 50 links, caching for 5 minutes), and groups results by status categories. This enriches 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 efficient details on extraction, checking methods, result grouping, concurrency, and caching. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (scanning with concurrency and caching), the description provides complete context: it explains the process, output grouping, and performance aspects. With annotations covering safety and an output schema likely detailing result structures, no critical information is missing, making it fully adequate for agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the url parameter well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema, as it only mentions 'URL to scan' without extra details like format constraints or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('scan a page for broken links') and resource ('page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like accessibility_audit or seo_audit by focusing exclusively on link validation. It specifies what types of issues it detects (404s, redirects, timeouts, server errors), making the purpose 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 implies usage context by mentioning it extracts 'internal + external' links and checks them, suggesting it's for web page analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like full_audit or compare_sites, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some guidance gaps.

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