Check live whether llms.txt and JSON-LD are correctly installed on the
authenticated client's domain. Returns an overall status
(fully_deployed / partially_deployed / not_deployed) plus the detailed
result for each artifact.
Use when an agent needs to confirm that GEO artifacts are serving
correctly on the client's site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the safety profile is already known. The description adds valuable context by indicating this is a live check (implying network fetch) and specifying the return structure (overall status plus detailed results), going beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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 resource. Every sentence earns its place: the first covers purpose and output, the second gives usage context. No redundant or filler content.
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 has no output schema, so the description's mention of the overall status values and per-artifact results fully covers return semantics. Combined with the readOnly annotation and usage guidance, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since there are no parameters to document.
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 begins with a specific verb ('Check live whether') and clearly identifies the resource ('llms.txt and JSON-LD on the authenticated client's domain'). It also lists the exact statuses returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_geo by focusing on installation verification rather than analysis.
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 provides an explicit 'Use when' clause stating the tool confirms GEO artifacts are serving correctly on a client's site. It lacks when-not or alternative tool references, but the context is clear and the tool is niche enough that no exclusions are necessary.
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.