Generate a public report link for the authenticated client and persist
it. Returns {report_url, slug}.
Use when an agent needs to create a shareable report covering the
client's full visibility status: crawler activity, revenue at risk,
competitive intelligence and competitors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only set readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining the mutation. It adds 'persist it' and 'authenticated client', showing it writes and requires auth. It does not mention side effects, reversibility, or any limitations, which keeps transparency moderate.
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, front-loaded with the core action and return, followed by a compact usage statement. No wasted words or redundancy.
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 0-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description fully covers the function, the persistence behavior, the return shape, and the report's subject matter. It leaves little ambiguity for an agent.
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?
There are no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description mentions the return object and report scope, but nothing parameter-specific is needed or possible.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Generate a public report link' and 'persist it'. The description specifies the return value shape and the report's content areas (crawler activity, revenue at risk, etc.), distinctly separating it from sibling get_* tools that read data rather than create a shareable artifact.
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?
Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use when an agent needs to create a shareable report covering the client's full visibility status...' No alternatives or when-not-tos are given, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, though analyze_geo overlaps slightly with get_bleed_model and get_competitor_actions. Descriptions clarify the differences, making misselection unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (activate_artifact, get_bot_activity, mark_applied). Minor deviations like analyze_geo instead of get_geo_analysis don't break the pattern.
16 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the server covers multiple subdomains (artifacts, analysis, quick wins, reporting), so each tool has a clear purpose.
The tool set covers the full artifact lifecycle (generate, list, get, approve, activate, regenerate) and the core analysis metrics. Minor gaps like no explicit delete tool for artifacts exist, but regenerate serves that need.