list_sleepwalker_testsList the authenticated user's Content Intelligence and AI Citations tests only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of items to return. | |
| test_type | No | Optional report type filter. Use content_intelligence or ai_visibility. | |
| brand_name | No | Optional brand or entity filter. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / brand_name / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional brand or entity filter."Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum number of items to return."Input schema / properties / test_type / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional report type filter. Use content_intelligence or ai_visibility."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as safe and idempotent. The description adds context about user-specific scoping ('authenticated user's'), which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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, efficient sentence of 12 words, with no redundancy. Perfectly 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?
The tool is simple with 3 optional params and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose and scope, though it could mention return type or pagination but these are covered by schema.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter insight beyond the schema, only implicitly linking to test_type values.
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 lists only 'Content Intelligence and AI Citations' tests for the authenticated user, with a specific verb and resource. The title and name align, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that list runs.
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 listing tests (as opposed to runs from siblings), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It is clear in context.
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.