Skip to main content
Glama

seodraft

by app.seodraft
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Submit topic analysis

submit_topic_analysis
DestructiveIdempotent

Stores an agent-authored analysis of one topic's observed evidence: content gaps, angles and the People-Also-Ask questions grouped by intent. This is the only inference in the product (seodraft never calls a model, so gaps and angles only exist if sent), and it is stored with provenance inferred and source agent, never mixed into the observed numbers. Free: no provider call. topic is a term or a topicId. Every gap and every angle must carry evidence: one or more strings that match exactly what the workspace already holds: a cited domain, a result title, a People-Also-Ask question (from the topic's stored brief, returned by complete_onboarding as firstBriefObserved and analysisRequest.evidence) or one of the stored topic terms. Same rule applies inside paaGroups. A reference that matches none of them is refused with degraded: true, reason: unknown-evidence and unknownRefs naming the offenders; nothing is stored, and the reply carries the admissible evidence for a corrected resubmission. Other refusals: unsupported-finding (a gap or angle with no evidence), empty-analysis (no gap, angle or group), topic-not-found, archived-topic. In preview mode (no SERP read yet) the only admissible references are the stored topic terms: grouping the founder's own questions by intent is legitimate, a market gap claimed from nothing is not, and the stored basis records which happened (observed-serp, topic-bank or mixed). Used once per topic, after complete_onboarding or research_topic has produced the evidence to cite.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gapsNo
topicYes
anglesNo
paaGroupsNo
workspaceIdNoThe workspace this call acts on, as listed by list_workspaces. Left out, the call uses the workspace the account is in right now.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / workspaceId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The workspace this call acts on, as listed by list_workspaces. Left out, the call uses the workspace the account is in right now.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes far beyond annotations: it discloses idempotent-once-per-topic behavior, provenance handling (never mixed into observed numbers), the free/no-provider-call nature, and a full catalogue of refusal codes (unknown-evidence with degraded:true and unknownRefs, unsupported-finding, empty-analysis, topic-not-found, archived-topic) plus what happens on refusal (nothing stored, admissible evidence returned).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then usage. It is dense and long, but each sentence (refusal codes, evidence rule, preview mode) carries actionable detail rather than redundancy, so the length is largely earned.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex, destructive, evidence-validating write tool with no output schema, the description covers the refusal surface, evidence contract, preview constraints, and provenance. Complete enough to invoke correctly, though the intent enum values and the exact shape of the success reply are left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does so well: it explains topic as 'a term or a topicId', the exact evidence-matching rule for gaps/angles and inside paaGroups, and the preview-mode restriction. It doesn't enumerate the paaGroups intent enum values, a minor gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: storing an agent-authored analysis of one topic's evidence (gaps, angles, PAA question groups). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like research_topic and complete_onboarding by being the only write path for inferred findings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use: 'Used once per topic, after complete_onboarding or research_topic has produced the evidence to cite,' and clarifies the preview-mode case. It names triggering siblings but doesn't spell out a when-not alternative beyond the evidence prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All seodraft toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources