Squish

Add ai visibility coverage

add_ai_visibility_coverage

Adds one more domain to a customer's AI Visibility plan (up to 3 extra). The domain must be provably theirs: on this account's registrar portfolio, or pointing at their own server. Two-step: (1) confirm:false previews (slot free? already covered?) and names the domain; read it to the customer and get an explicit yes. (2) ONLY after an explicit yes, call with confirm:true: the proof is checked, the slot is taken and a first scan is run. Refused with UNVERIFIED and a reason when the domain cannot be confirmed as theirs; relay that reason, it says what to do.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "coveredDomain": "<coveredDomain>"
    },
    "name": "add_ai_visibility_coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	The hosting plan's domain.
`confirm`	No	false (default) previews; true adds it. Pass true ONLY after explicit user confirmation.
`coveredDomain`	Yes	The domain to add to the plan's coverage.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing the ownership-proof check, slot consumption, a first scan being triggered, and the UNVERIFIED refusal with a reason to relay to the customer. The only gap is that the description does not restate idempotency or what the preview returns structurally, which annotations/behavior imply but do not spell out.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action and limit, then numbered steps in call order, then the failure mode. Dense but every sentence carries operational information; nothing is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision path: preconditions (ownership proof, slot availability), the confirmation gate, side effects (slot taken, scan run), and the error contract (UNVERIFIED plus reason). Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the preview-then-commit semantics of confirm beyond the schema's one-liner, and frames domain/coveredDomain around the ownership-proof requirement. It does not clarify beyond the schema which of the two domain parameters is the plan's own versus the one being added, so not a 5.

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 ('Adds one more domain to a customer's AI Visibility plan'), plus the hard limit (up to 3 extra), which immediately separates it from remove_ai_visibility_coverage and get_my_ai_visibility_coverage.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: call with confirm:false first to preview slot/coverage status, read the domain back to the customer, and only call with confirm:true after an explicit yes. When-not guidance is equally clear, since it forbids committing without confirmation.

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

All Squish tools Inspect

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

Need Help?