list_monitored_businessesList businesses owned by your connected MentionedOn account and their monitoring/setup status. Start here when the user asks how their business appears in AI answers. Returns a setup link for an empty account. No scan, subscription or charge is started.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nextStep | Yes | ||
| setupUrl | Yes | ||
| businesses | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / businesses / items / properties / monitoringAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "live",
+ "paused",
+ "plan_limit",
+ "off",
+ "payment_failed"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / businesses / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name",
- "website",
- "active",
- "onboardingStatus"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "website",
+ "active",
+ "monitoring",
+ "onboardingStatus"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds real information beyond the annotations: it discloses that an empty account gets a setup link and that no scan, subscription, or charge is triggered — meaningful for an agent worried about side effects. The read-only/idempotent safety profile is already covered by annotations, so this is additive rather than redundant.
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?
Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact: what is listed, when to call it, the empty-account setup link, and the absence of cost. Purpose is front-loaded with no filler.
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?
With an output schema describing returns, rich annotations, and no parameters, the description supplies everything still needed: entry-point guidance, empty-account behavior, and cost/scan reassurance.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4 and there is nothing further a description could clarify about inputs.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (businesses owned by the connected MentionedOn account) plus what metadata comes back (monitoring/setup status). This is clearly a read-oriented inventory tool, distinguishable from the analysis/report siblings such as get_visibility_report or analyze_discovery_readiness.
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?
"Start here when the user asks how their business appears in AI answers" gives an explicit entry-point condition. It does not enumerate a when-not-to-use case or name a sibling alternative, so it stops just short of a 5.
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.
Last observed