create_siteAdd a new site to the account. Language/market is auto-detected from the homepage. Requires an available paid site slot (use create_checkout first if none). Returns the new siteId. (requires an agent API key)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| niche | No | ||
| domain | Yes | Bare domain, e.g. example.com | |
| brandVoice | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| publishWebhookUrl | No | ||
| publishIntegration | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses key behaviors: language/market auto-detection from the homepage, the requirement for a paid slot, the return of siteId, and the agent API key requirement. These add meaningful context about side effects and conditions.
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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences plus a parenthetical. Every sentence adds value—purpose, prerequisite, return value, and authentication. No unnecessary 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?
The description covers the essential purpose, prerequisite, and return value. However, with 7 parameters and minimal schema descriptions, the lack of parameter semantics and the absence of an output schema leave gaps. While the tool is not overly complex, the description is not fully complete for robust invocation of optional parameters.
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 description coverage is only 14%, with only 'domain' having a description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it does not explain 'name', 'niche', 'brandVoice', 'description', 'publishWebhookUrl', or 'publishIntegration'. With such low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for most parameters.
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 tool's purpose: 'Add a new site to the account.' It also mentions the return value ('Returns the new siteId') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_checkout by specifying a prerequisite. The verb 'Add' and resource 'site' are explicit.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Requires an available paid site slot (use create_checkout first if none).' This tells when to use this tool and directs the agent to an alternative when a prerequisite is unmet. It also mentions the agent API key requirement, giving clear conditions for invocation.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but word-counter and character-counter overlap heavily, and meta-tag-generator subsumes several other generators (title, description, canonical). The sheer number of adjacent content generators creates some ambiguity, though descriptions generally clarify.
Tool names are inconsistent: some use snake_case (create_site, get_article, list_articles) while others use hyphenated lowercase (ad-copy-generator, meta-tag-generator, robots-txt-generator). This mixing of conventions makes it hard for an agent to predict the name for a given action.
With 59 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for a typical MCP server. Many tools are similar (various calculators, many content generators) and could be consolidated, making the surface bloated and harder to navigate.
The server covers a broad range of SEO tasks: site management, article generation/publishing, analytics, technical SEO, and content tools. However, there are gaps such as missing update/delete operations for articles and no backlink analysis, leaving some workflows incomplete.