get_seo_briefingUse this first when the user asks what to do with SEO today, what changed, or what to focus on. Returns the top actions, recent rank moves, plan limits, and the next automatic check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | ||
| projectId | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | ||
| since | Yes | ||
| usage | Yes | ||
| actions | Yes | ||
| changes | Yes | ||
| generatedAt | Yes | ||
| nextCheckAt | Yes | ||
| searchConsole | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / actions / items / properties / difficultyAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / actions / items / properties / searchVolumeAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / actions / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "actionKey",
- "type",
- "title",
- "why",
- "estimatedMonthlyClicks",
- "effort",
- "nextSteps",
- "projectId",
- "projectName",
- "keywordId",
- "keyword"
-]New value: +[
+ "actionKey",
+ "type",
+ "title",
+ "why",
+ "estimatedMonthlyClicks",
+ "searchVolume",
+ "difficulty",
+ "effort",
+ "nextSteps",
+ "projectId",
+ "projectName",
+ "keywordId",
+ "keyword"
+]Output schema / properties / searchConsoleAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "connected": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "projects": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "averagePosition": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "clicks": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "clicksDelta": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "impressions": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "linked": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "projectId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "projectName": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "siteUrl": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "projectId",
+ "projectName",
+ "linked",
+ "siteUrl",
+ "clicks",
+ "impressions",
+ "averagePosition",
+ "clicksDelta"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "connected",
+ "projects"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "generatedAt",
- "since",
- "actions",
- "changes",
- "plan",
- "usage",
- "nextCheckAt"
-]New value: +[
+ "generatedAt",
+ "since",
+ "actions",
+ "changes",
+ "plan",
+ "usage",
+ "nextCheckAt",
+ "searchConsole"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the composition of the response (actions, rank moves, plan limits, next check), which is orientation value, but says nothing about cost, caching, project scoping, or what "next automatic check" means operationally.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the usage trigger front-loaded before the payload description. Nothing is redundant with annotations or the title.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values don't need spelling out, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The gap is parameter behavior: an agent reading only this description can't tell whether it must pass projectId or how `since` affects the briefing, which is significant given both params are undocumented. Adequate for tool selection, incomplete for correct invocation.
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 0% and the description never mentions either parameter. The `since` parameter is the one that actually matters — it presumably drives the "what changed" portion — and `projectId` is unexplained as to whether it's required or what happens when omitted. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific resource (a briefing) and enumerates exactly what it contains: top actions, recent rank moves, plan limits, next automatic check. The sibling set is full of narrow lookups (get_rank_changes, get_search_performance, find_quick_wins), and this one is clearly the aggregator above them, so an agent can separate it from those tools without opening a schema.
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?
"Use this first when the user asks what to do with SEO today, what changed, or what to focus on" gives explicit trigger conditions, and "first" establishes ordering against all the sibling lookups. It stops short of naming a specific alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so it isn't a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.