SiteAudit MCP

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what the audit checks (e.g., title tags, meta descriptions) and that it returns a score and recommendations, which helps the agent understand the tool's output and scope 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 specific details in a concise list format. Every sentence earns its place by adding value—first stating the action, then listing checks, and finally describing the output—with no wasted words.

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, the description is complete enough: it explains what the audit does, what it checks, and the return format (score + recommendations). With annotations covering safety and an output schema likely detailing the return structure, the description provides adequate context without needing to explain parameters or output values in depth.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'url' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as URL format requirements or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 an SEO-focused audit') and resource ('on a URL'), and distinguishes it from siblings by listing the specific SEO aspects checked (title tags, meta descriptions, etc.). It goes beyond just restating the name/title by detailing what the audit encompasses.

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 SEO analysis of a URL but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lighthouse_audit' or 'full_audit'. It provides context (SEO-focused) but lacks guidance on exclusions or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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