SiteAudit MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains the tool returns a unified score (0-100) plus detailed results for each category, and that it's 'the most complete analysis available.' This provides insight into output format and scope, though it doesn't mention potential limitations like execution time or rate limits.

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 in three sentences: the first states the core function, the second explains the return format, and the third emphasizes comprehensiveness. Each sentence adds distinct value with zero redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (single parameter, read-only operation), the description is complete: it covers purpose, output format (score plus details), and differentiation from siblings. With annotations indicating read-only safety and an output schema presumably detailing the return structure, no critical gaps remain for agent understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single 'url' parameter, the schema already fully documents the input. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., URL format requirements or examples), so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('Run a comprehensive audit') and resources ('on a URL'), explicitly listing the three audit categories (SEO, performance, security). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it's 'the most complete analysis available,' contrasting with specialized tools like seo_audit or security_audit.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('comprehensive audit... in one call') versus alternatives, implying it should be chosen over specialized sibling tools when a unified analysis is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for focused checks) or name specific alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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