AISeeWhy

explain_finding

Read-onlyIdempotent

Explain a finding id (e.g. access.blocked, robots.disallowed, schema.software_no_offers) in the given language: what it means, why it matters for AI search and how to fix it.

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": {
      "finding_id": "<finding_id>"
    },
    "name": "explain_finding"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`language`	No	Report language as a code such as en, de, fr, es, ja or zh. Defaults to the account language (English without a key); 30 languages are supported.
`finding_id`	Yes	Finding id exactly as shown in an audit report, for example access.blocked or llms.missing.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / finding_id / description

Added value: +"Finding id exactly as shown in an audit report, for example access.blocked or llms.missing."

addedInput schema / properties / language / description

Added value: +"Report language as a code such as en, de, fr, es, ja or zh. Defaults to the account language (English without a key); 30 languages are supported."

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the explanation (meaning, why it matters, how to fix), which tells the agent what it can expect to learn. It says nothing about behavior when the id is unknown or about language fallback, though the schema partially covers the latter.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the three-part output scope following immediately. Nothing is redundant with the title, and every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema defining the return value, full parameter coverage, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The one remaining gap is the lack of explicit guidance on where a finding id originates, which would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with examples and language codes. The description's examples of finding ids marginally reinforce the schema but add no new syntax, format, or constraint information, and it never mentions the language parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Explain a finding id') and enumerates exactly what the explanation covers: meaning, relevance to AI search, and remediation. Three concrete example ids make the target resource unambiguous and distinguish it from the audit-producing siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent must infer that a finding id comes from an audit report and that this tool is the follow-up to audit_url or audit_sitemap. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from any sibling.

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

All AISeeWhy 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.