Categorize a search position into its ranking bucket (e.g., Top 3, Page 1) for SEO analysis.
primitive: Get the ranking bucket for a specific position (e.g. Top 3, Page 1).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position | Yes | The ranking position | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It fails to describe the output format, possible return values, or any side effects. The examples hint at output but do not specify whether it's a string, object, or enum. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
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 that conveys the core purpose with an illustrative example. No unnecessary words or tautology. It is optimally 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?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description explains the primary function. However, it lacks details on the return value (e.g., type, possible values) and does not mention any constraints or dependencies. This leaves the agent slightly uncertain about how to interpret the output.
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 coverage is 100% (both 'engine' and 'position' have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only echoes the examples. Thus, it meets but does not exceed the baseline.
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 function: 'Get the ranking bucket for a specific position' and provides concrete examples ('Top 3, Page 1'). This makes the purpose immediately understandable and distinguishes it from sibling primitive tools like seo_primitive_traffic_delta.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Given the many sibling tools, explicit usage guidelines would be valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.