SEOmatic

visibility_manage

Manage the workspace's AI-visibility monitor: list the tracked prompts scans ask every engine, add/edit/remove prompts, and set the scan cadence. Reads of scan RESULTS live in ai_citations action scan_results. Running a FRESH scan is not available over MCP; point the user at the dashboard. Config changes apply directly (no staging) but are plan-capped, and cadence is a spend lever - 'daily' multiplies recurring scan cost ~7x and needs the user's explicit ask. Already scoped to the connected workspace and its site; call directly, no domain or site parameter is needed. Cost: all actions are FREE config changes; each ACTIVE prompt raises the recurring scan cost when scans run, and cadence 'daily' is ~7x weekly spend - disclose before setting.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	No	update: new prompt wording.
`action`	Yes	Which operation to run. list (tracked prompts + plan allowance + cadence); add (track a new buyer question (plan-capped)); update (rename / pin / (de)activate a prompt); remove (delete a prompt permanently (confirm with the user)); set_cadence (weekly / daily / manual - daily is ~7x spend, explicit user ask only).
`active`	No	update: false pauses scanning (keeps history), true re-activates (re-checks the plan cap).
`pinned`	No	update: pin the prompt.
`prompt`	No	add: the buyer question to track, in the customer voice.
`cadence`	No	set_cadence: how often scans run. 'daily' ~7x weekly spend.
`promptId`	No	update/remove: the prompt id from list.
`user_intent`	No	Optional: one short sentence describing what the user is ultimately trying to achieve with this request. Used by SEOmatic to tailor answers and improve the product; never required.
`languageCode`	No	Locale language code, e.g. "en".
`locationCode`	No	Locale location code (default: primary monitor).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / action / description

Previous value: -"Which operation to run. add (track a new buyer question (plan-capped)); update (rename / pin / (de)activate a prompt); remove (delete a prompt permanently (confirm with the user)); set_cadence (weekly / daily / manual - daily is ~7x spend, explicit user ask only)."New value: +"Which operation to run. list (tracked prompts + plan allowance + cadence); add (track a new buyer question (plan-capped)); update (rename / pin / (de)activate a prompt); remove (delete a prompt permanently (confirm with the user)); set_cadence (weekly / daily / manual - daily is ~7x spend, explicit user ask only)."

changedInput schema / properties / action / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "add",
-  "update",
-  "remove",
-  "set_cadence"
-]New value: +[
+  "list",
+  "add",
+  "update",
+  "remove",
+  "set_cadence"
+]

AddedSep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that config changes apply directly with no staging, that changes are plan-capped, that cadence 'daily' multiplies spend ~7x and requires explicit user ask, and that each active prompt raises recurring scan cost. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before invoking mutations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then delivers high-value constraints. It is slightly repetitive about the 'daily' cost multiplier, appearing both in the cadence explanation and again in the cost summary, but each sentence still earns its place and the structure is scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 5 actions, cost implications), the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: scope, routing to sibling tools, plan caps, cost levers, consent requirements, and direct application of changes. An output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be in the prose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds meaning above the schema by explaining the spend implications of 'daily' cadence and active prompts, and by emphasizing the need for explicit user confirmation before setting the expensive cadence.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Manage'), a clear resource ('AI-visibility monitor'), and enumerates the exact operations: list, add/edit/remove prompts, and set cadence. It also differentiates from siblings by noting that scan results live in ai_citations and that fresh scans must go through the dashboard, so an agent knows precisely what this tool does and does not do.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly routes the user elsewhere for related but different actions: 'Reads of scan RESULTS live in ai_citations action scan_results' and 'Running a FRESH scan is not available over MCP; point the user at the dashboard.' It also clarifies that no domain or site parameter is needed, preventing unnecessary calls.

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

All SEOmatic tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.