Regenerate the GEO artifacts (llms_txt, json_ld and supporting schema
nodes) for the authenticated client. Respects a 6h cooldown and the
daily generation budget.
Use when an agent needs to force regeneration after changes to the
site or to the competitor/advantage configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds important behavioral details: 'Respects a 6h cooldown and the daily generation budget.' It also notes it operates 'for the authenticated client,' disclosing auth scope. These go beyond the annotations and provide critical rate-limit information.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and artifact types, followed by usage context. Every sentence adds value: the first defines scope, the second provides trigger conditions and constraints. No wasted words.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it regenerates, the constraints (cooldown/budget), and when to use it. The agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and understand the outcome.
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?
The tool has zero parameters (empty input schema), so the rubric gives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't, which 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?
The description clearly identifies the tool as regenerating GEO artifacts (llms_txt, json_ld, supporting schema nodes) and distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_artifact by focusing on regeneration. The verb 'Regenerate' plus specific resource names fully capture the purpose.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when an agent needs to force regeneration after changes to the site or to the competitor/advantage configuration.' This gives a clear trigger condition, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is sufficient for an agent to decide.
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.