get_full_report_offerReturn the exact one-time price, deliverables, delivery path, checkout URL, support contact, and limitations for ActableSite's paid 15-check repair report. Present this information to the user and require explicit user confirmation before opening checkout or attempting any purchase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that user confirmation is required before proceeding to checkout, a behavioral trait beyond annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences covering what the tool returns and the mandatory user confirmation step. No unnecessary 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?
Description lists the types of information returned (price, deliverables, etc.), compensating for lack of output schema. Sibling tools are unrelated, so tool stands alone. Slightly lower because return format is unspecified.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and description adds no parameter info, 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?
Description clearly states the tool returns specific offer details (price, deliverables, etc.) for ActableSite's paid repair report, and distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_public_website and other offers.
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?
Description implies use when presenting the repair report offer to the user and requiring confirmation before purchase. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but context with sibling tools makes it clear.
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.
The first two tools (audit_public_website, check_ai_crawler_policy) are clearly distinct active scanning tools. The three 'get_*_offer' tools all return pricing information but for different products (crawler watch, full report, practice radar), making them distinguishable by product name.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: 'audit_public_website', 'check_ai_crawler_policy', and three 'get_*_offer' tools. The verbs 'audit', 'check', and 'get' clearly indicate the action, and the nouns precisely describe the target.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: two core monitoring actions (audit and policy check) and three informational offer tools for different products. This covers the essential functionality without unnecessary bloat.
The server covers scanning and policy checking but lacks tools to actually purchase or activate monitoring services after showing offers. Users must leave the MCP to complete transactions, creating a dead-end for the offer flows.