Check if a search query contains brand terms using a customizable regex pattern. Identify brand queries to refine SEO analysis.
primitive: Check if a query is a brand query based on a regex pattern.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search query | |
| brandRegex | Yes | Regex pattern to identify brand terms | |
| engine | No | The search engine (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that it checks based on a regex pattern but does not disclose the return type (likely boolean), any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a read-like operation, basic transparency is missing.
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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it borders on being too minimal. It lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or clear separation of concerns) and could benefit from a brief note on output or usage.
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 has no output schema and 3 parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention what the output represents (e.g., boolean true/false), how the regex is applied, or any edge cases. For a primitive utility, the description should at least hint at the return value.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions. It restates the existence of 'query' and 'brandRegex' but offers no additional context like expected format or examples.
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: checking if a query is a brand query using a regex pattern. The verb 'Check' and the noun 'brand query' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling primitive tools like seo_primitive_is_cannibalized, so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or when to avoid using it. For example, it does not compare to other brand analysis tools like 'bing_brand_analysis' or 'brand_analysis'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.