Return the full report payload for a share link slug owned by the
authenticated client. Returns the report even if the share link has
expired.
Use when an agent needs to read a report it previously generated
with generate_share_link, without opening the public URL in a browser.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by noting the report is returned even if the share link has expired, and that it is only for slugs owned by the authenticated client. It does not contradict the annotation.
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?
Three concise sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, behavioral edge case, and usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded.
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 description covers purpose, usage context, ownership constraint, and expiry behavior. For a simple read-only tool with annotations and a single parameter, this is well-rounded, though it could mention return format or error behavior.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that the slug (the only parameter) is a share link slug. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema type, though it doesn't detail slug format or provenance.
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 returns the full report payload for a share link slug, with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling generate_share_link by focusing on reading previously generated reports.
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 the tool: when an agent needs to read a report previously generated with generate_share_link, without opening the public URL. It gives clear context but does not list alternatives or exclusions beyond that.
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.