Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by com.abbyseo

Find My SEO Scans / Reports by Email

find_my_reports
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a user's recent SEO scans by the email they used — for RETURNING users who don't have a scan_id handy (scanned/purchased earlier or on the website). In a fresh session where the user has no scan_id, START HERE: ask the user for that email, then call this. Returns up to 10 recent scans as {scan_id, url, scanned_at, paid, runbook_ready}. Then use the scan_id with get_remediation_plan (if paid+runbook_ready) or purchase_report (if not paid).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesThe email address the user used when scanning or purchasing.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the return format (up to 10 scans with specific fields) and limits, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the raw annotations.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph. Every sentence serves a purpose: defining the tool, specifying when to use, and guiding the flow. No unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and integration with sibling tools. No gaps remain.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The email parameter already has clear format and description in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'look up' and resource 'recent SEO scans by email'. It provides specific context for returning users without a scan_id, distinguishing it from siblings like get_remediation_plan or purchase_report.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: for returning users without a scan_id, in a fresh session. Provides clear instructions to ask for email first, then call this, and outlines subsequent steps (get_remediation_plan or purchase_report).

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

All mcp-server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: starting scans, polling status, retrieving results, looking up old scans, checking purchase status, purchasing, getting remediation plans, and server documentation. No ambiguity between tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Seven tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_scan_results, purchase_report). The outlier 'how_to_use' deviates slightly from the pattern. Overall naming is coherent and readable.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools cover the full SEO scan workflow without being excessive. Each tool serves a necessary step, from submission to remediation, so the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core workflow: scan submission, status polling, results retrieval, purchase, purchase status, and remediation plan retrieval. A minor gap is the lack of a tool for user account management or scan history beyond email lookup, but these are not essential for the primary use case.

Resources