Engagemii AI Visibility Data

Request the free fix kit

free_kit

Request the FREE Customized Fix Kit for a domain. There is one kit and it is the free Customized Fix Kit: ready-to-install fix files written from your own site, plus a PDF audit. Flow: pass the owner's email; Engagemii emails a verification link; after the owner clicks it the kit is built and the download link is emailed automatically. Kits are queued, so delivery is by email rather than in-chat. One kit per domain; repeat requests resend the stored kit.

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>",
      "email": "<email>",
      "owner_confirmed": "<owner_confirmed>"
    },
    "name": "free_kit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes	The site owner's email (the verification link and the kit go there)
`domain`	Yes	The site, e.g. example.com
`owner_confirmed`	Yes	Confirm with the user that this is their own brand. Agencies working on client sites should use the data portal (engagemii.com/aeo/data) instead.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent call. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: an email verification link must be clicked before the kit is built, kits are queued and delivered by email rather than in-chat, one kit per domain, and repeat requests resend the stored kit (which explains the non-idempotent hint).

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 the action and resource, then the flow, then the constraints. Slightly redundant ("There is one kit and it is the free Customized Fix Kit" repeats the opening), but no sentence is wasted overall.

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?

Covers the full asynchronous lifecycle (request, verification, queued build, emailed delivery, resend) despite having no output schema, which is what an agent needs to set expectations. Minor gaps remain on failure paths, such as what happens if the owner never verifies or the email is invalid.

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 all three parameters, including the owner_confirmed gate, are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the email verification flow and the one-kit-per-domain constraint, but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Request') and resource ('FREE Customized Fix Kit for a domain'), and disambiguates from the 'kit_download' sibling by clarifying that delivery is by email, not in-chat. An agent knows exactly what this creates and why it is not a download call.

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 clear preconditions (pass the owner's email, confirm it is the user's own brand) and explicitly routes agencies working on client sites to the data portal instead. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like kit_download or aeo_audit, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All Engagemii AI Visibility Data 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?