Run normal Sulvo signup step 1: verify the publisher domain and create the unauthenticated signup lead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Applicant email address. | ||
| domain | Yes | Primary publisher root domain to submit for Sulvo signup. | |
| outputFormat | No | markdown | |
| monthlyPageviews | No | Optional expected monthly pageviews to carry into the response. The current lead API stores traffic during account creation. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a lead and verifies a domain, but omits behavioral traits like whether it is destructive, what happens on duplicate attempts, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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 a single, concise sentence that packs essential information (step number, actions, resource) without extraneous words.
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?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what 'unauthenticated signup lead' means, what the response looks like, or prerequisites (e.g., does the domain need to be registered?). More detail is needed for a first-step signup tool.
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 75%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The description does not elaborate on 'outputFormat' (which has an enum) or 'monthlyPageviews' (which has a description). The schema's descriptions for required params are adequate.
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 specific action: 'Run normal Sulvo signup step 1: verify the publisher domain and create the unauthenticated signup lead.' It uses a specific verb-resource structure (verify domain, create lead) and distinguishes from siblings that handle later steps like account creation or status checks.
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 this is the first step in a multi-step signup process ('signup step 1'), providing context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools.
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.
Many tools are clearly scoped (e.g., `create_sulvo_ad_unit` vs `delete_sulvo_ad_unit`), but there is confusion with tools like `run_publisher_revenue_audit` and `get_publisher_revenue_audit_checklist` which sound like they could overlap. Also, `start_sulvo_signup` and `create_sulvo_signup_account` seem to operate on different stages of signup but could be confused at a glance.
The naming convention is generally consistent with a `verb_sulvo_noun` pattern (e.g., `create_sulvo_ad_unit`, `delete_sulvo_ad_unit`). The `get_` and `run_` prefixes are used somewhat inconsistently (e.g., `run_publisher_revenue_audit` vs `get_publisher_revenue_audit_checklist`), and some tool names feel a bit verbose, but overall patterns are recognizable.
With 40 tools, the server covers a massive surface area including signup, activation, reporting, and auditing. While each tool has a specific purpose, the number feels somewhat bloated for a single server, suggesting it could be split into more focused sub-servers (e.g., `sulvo-signup`, `sulvo-reporting`). It is on the high end of 'appropriate'.
The tool set appears very complete for the Sulvo ecosystem, covering everything from account creation (`create_sulvo_signup_account`) to auditing (`run_agentic_readiness_audit`) and activation (`submit_sulvo_activation_workspace`). The only minor gap is the lack of a direct way to start signup beyond step 1, but this is documented as an API limitation, not a tool gap.
