import_targetsBulk import up to 100 websites for monitoring. Each URL gets a target created with auto-enabled tests, initial scan, and screenshot capture. Partial success — failed URLs are reported individually without blocking others.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Array of targets to import |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully compensates by disclosing key behaviors: auto-enabled tests, initial scan, screenshot capture, and the crucial partial success semantics where failed URLs are reported without blocking others. This is specific and useful for an agent, covering side effects and failure handling.
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 exactly two sentences, starts with a clear action, and packs behavior details without redundancy. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's scope and failure model.
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 bulk import tool, the description adequately covers the operation's scope, individual target behavior, and error handling. The only minor gap is not describing the successful response format (e.g., created target IDs), but since there is no output schema, this is a slight omission rather than a critical defect.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (url, name, type), so the description adds little beyond restating the URL-to-target mapping. The 'up to 100' limit is already present in the schema as maxItems, and the description does not introduce new parameter-specific details beyond that.
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 ('Bulk import up to 100 websites') and the outcome ('Each URL gets a target created'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'create_target' by emphasizing bulk quantity and the combined setup behavior.
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 'Bulk import' phrasing and the explicit 100-item limit imply batch usage, making it clear that this is for multi-target scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative 'create_target' for single imports or any exclusion criteria, leaving the guidance slightly implicit.
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 are clearly separated by resource (targets, runs, findings, incidents, etc.) and action. A few close pairs like active_runs/list_runs and mute_finding/create_muting_rule could confuse, but descriptions clarify the distinctions.
The majority of tools follow verb_noun naming (create_target, get_target, delete_journey). A few outliers use noun phrases (active_runs, daily_trends, system_health, team_stats) which slightly breaks the pattern, but overall the convention is predictable.
74 tools is extreme for any MCP server. Even for a comprehensive monitoring platform, this overwhelms agents with too many granular operations (e.g., enable_all_tests vs disable_all_tests vs update_test, or import_targets duplicating create_target). A more consolidated set would be appropriate.
The tool surface is remarkably complete for the monitoring domain: full CRUD for targets, journeys, rules, reports, secrets, and fragments; plus run triggering, incident management, findings handling, SEO tracking, guest scans, and admin tools. Only maintenance windows lack an update operation, which is minor.