agentseo_ai_visibility_prompt_setBuild stable AI visibility prompt sets mapped to owned assets, platforms, competitors, citations, and weekly action routing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sync | No | ||
| locale | No | United States | |
| target | Yes | ||
| topics | Yes | ||
| cadence | No | weekly | |
| audience | No | ||
| category | Yes | ||
| personas | No | ||
| platforms | No | ||
| competitors | No | ||
| owned_assets | No | ||
| prompt_count | No | ||
| product_terms | No | ||
| include_citation_checks | No | ||
| include_competitor_checks | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits like read/write nature, side effects, rate limits, or permissions. The description only states what the tool builds, not how it behaves.
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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main action. It includes key mapping elements without excessive words. However, it could be slightly clearer.
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 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain what a prompt set is, how it is used, or what the return value looks like. Most parameters remain undiscussed.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only mentions a few parameters (e.g., owned_assets, platforms, competitors, cadence) without explaining the required parameters 'target', 'category', and 'topics'. It adds marginal meaning beyond the parameter names.
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 includes a specific verb 'Build' and resource 'AI visibility prompt sets', and distinguishes the tool from siblings by mentioning mapping to owned assets, platforms, competitors, etc. However, the phrase is somewhat jargony and could be clearer about the exact output.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not mention when not to use it or compare with 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.