What moved for the user's own store over the last 7 or 28 days versus the period before: store audit score, Search Console clicks/impressions and keyword positions, GA4 sessions with top rising/falling pages, Merchant Center clicks. Optional days (7 or 28, default 7).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| api_key | No | Store-bound SeoAiX API key (inxy_sk_…). Optional if already sent as an Authorization: Bearer header. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the comparison windows, default period, and the exact metric families returned, and 'get' implies read-only, but it says nothing about prerequisites (connected GSC/GA4/Merchant accounts), what happens when data is missing, or auth expectations beyond what the schema already states.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core behavior and then enumerates metrics; no filler. It is dense and somewhat list-heavy, but every clause conveys actionable information.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must define the return payload, and it does list the metric groups. It is incomplete on edge cases — unavailable data sources, permission/plan requirements, and result shape — which matter for a multi-source aggregated report.
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?
Schema coverage is 50%; the description supplies the one missing semantic — that `days` defaults to 7 — which the schema's enum does not express. The api_key parameter is already documented in the schema, so no compensation is needed there.
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+resource: reports period-over-period movement for the user's own store across named metrics (audit score, GSC, GA4, Merchant Center). Scope is narrowed to 'the user's own store', which distinguishes it from broader reporting siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'versus the period before' — an agent can infer this is for trend/delta analysis, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives like get_weekly_report or get_my_store_audit that also surface store performance.
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.
