agentseo_domain_intersectionCompare two domains to find shared keyword deficits, advantages, and target1-exclusive keyword opportunities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sync | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| sort_by | No | opportunity | |
| target1 | Yes | ||
| target2 | Yes | ||
| language | No | en | |
| location | No | United States | |
| intersections | No | ||
| location_code | No | ||
| min_search_volume | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states the purpose; no disclosure of behavioral traits like auth, rate limits, or side effects.
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?
Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose. Could include more detail without becoming verbose.
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 10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter details, the description is severely incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
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 0% and the description adds no meaning to any parameters. It only implies 'target1' and 'target2' as domains, but ignores all other 8 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 compares two domains to find keyword deficits, advantages, and exclusive opportunities. It uses specific verbs and resources, and differentiates from sibling tools like page_intersection.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
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.