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 useful context about what the audit checks and what it returns (score + fixes needed), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, execution time, or error conditions beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second lists specific checks and return values. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 (multiple security checks), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like execution characteristics 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' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a security audit') and resource ('on a URL'), and distinguishes it from siblings by listing the specific security checks performed (HTTPS, HSTS, CSP, etc.), which differentiates it from tools like accessibility_audit or seo_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 implies usage context (security assessment of a URL) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like full_audit or lighthouse_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.