disable_keywordStop monitoring a keyword (sets it DISABLED). Disabling is unlimited and immediate; any price reduction is applied at the end of the billing cycle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywordId | Yes | Keyword ID (UUID) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | The keyword with its status set to DISABLED. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: disabling is unlimited, immediate, and any price reduction is deferred to the end of the billing cycle. It does not contradict the destructiveHint annotation, since it clearly frames the action as a status change rather than deletion.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no redundant wording. The primary action is front-loaded, and the billing detail is a valuable addition without bloating the text.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, annotations, and a clear state change, the description covers the essential behaviors: what happens immediately and what happens with billing. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.
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 schema already documents keywordId as a UUID string with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter itself, so the baseline score of 3 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?
The description clearly states the action: 'Stop monitoring a keyword' and explicitly defines the resulting state as DISABLED. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_keyword and enable_keyword.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you want to stop monitoring a keyword while keeping it in a disabled state. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like delete_keyword or enable_keyword, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action: website CRUD, keyword lifecycle, mention queries/updates, alert settings, and billing previews. Even similar tools like list_mentions/count_mentions and activate_pending_keywords/preview_activate_pending are clearly separated as listing vs counting and action vs preview.
The vast majority follow a clear verb_noun pattern (list_websites, create_website, update_mention_status, preview_keyword_billing). The only noticeable outlier is keyword_change_usage, which reads like a noun phrase instead of get_keyword_change_usage, and activate_pending_keywords/preview_activate_pending invert verb placement.
21 tools is on the higher side for an MCP server, but the count is justified by the number of distinct resources (websites, keywords, mentions, alerts, billing) and the need for action/preview pairs. It feels slightly heavy but not bloated.
The server covers the core lifecycle for websites, keywords, mentions, alerts, and billing previews with no dead ends: create/list/update/delete resources and status transitions are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct current-plan retrieval and no bulk mention status updates, but agents can work around these.