Fetch a Webmatik audit by id. While background analysis (AI vision, AI search visibility) is still running the response says so — poll every ~15s until status is "completed". Returns scores per category, failed checks, and the prioritized recommendations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Webmatik API key (wmk_...). Optional if sent as Authorization: Bearer header. | |
| auditId | Yes | Audit id returned by run_audit |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses asynchronous behavior (status polling) and return contents (scores, failed checks, recommendations). With no annotations, this adequately covers key behavioral traits. Does not mention authentication error handling or rate limits.
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 concise sentences covering action, asynchronous detail, and return values. No redundancy or fluff.
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?
Completeness is high given no output schema: explains what data is returned and the polling mechanism. Could mention error responses or idempotency but not critical.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no further detail about parameter usage or formats, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states 'Fetch a Webmatik audit by id', uses specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling 'run_audit' which creates audits.
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?
Provides explicit polling advice ('poll every ~15s until status is completed'), indicating when to use repeatedly. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear given single sibling.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: run_audit starts a new audit, and get_audit retrieves results. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (run_audit, get_audit), making the naming predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its purpose: starting and retrieving audits. While slightly below the typical 3-15 range, it covers the essential operations without unnecessary extras.
The tool set provides a complete workflow: run_audit initiates the audit and returns an ID, and get_audit allows polling for results. There are no obvious gaps, as the audit lifecycle is fully supported.
