SiteAudit MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying what the analysis includes (allowed/disallowed paths, sitemaps, crawl-delay settings), which goes beyond the safety information provided by 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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each add value: stating the core purpose, listing analysis components, and no redundant information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main function.

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, annotations covering safety, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides sufficient context about what the tool analyzes. However, it could benefit from mentioning typical use cases or limitations.

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 single parameter 'url' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as URL format requirements or domain handling, meeting the baseline 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('check and analyze') and resource ('a site's robots.txt file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like accessibility_audit or seo_audit by focusing specifically on robots.txt analysis rather than broader audits.

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 (analyzing robots.txt files for web crawling insights) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_links or full_audit, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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