agentseo_local_auditAudit one Google Maps business listing. Provide its business name and city/state/country; do not pass a website URL or domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sync | No | ||
| language | No | en | |
| location | Yes | City, state, and country of the business | |
| business_name | Yes | Business name as shown on Google Maps, not a domain or URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / business_nameAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Business name as shown on Google Maps, not a domain or URL",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / domainRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Domain or business name",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / location / descriptionPrevious value: -"Target location"New value: +"City, state, and country of the business"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "domain",
- "location"
-]New value: +[
+ "business_name",
+ "location"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose what an audit comprises, whether it is a read-only or mutating operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or expected response behavior.
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?
Two efficient sentences that front-load the audit purpose followed by input constraints. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the core instruction.
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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should be more complete. It covers core inputs but leaves behavioral and parameter-level gaps that could confuse an agent about what the audit returns or how sync/language affect it.
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 50%, with 'sync' and 'language' lacking descriptions. The description does not compensate by explaining these undocumented parameters; it only reinforces that business_name should not be a URL, which the schema already states.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Audit one Google Maps business listing'), which distinguishes it from siblings like agentseo_local_visibility_track and agentseo_site_sitemap_audit that operate on different scopes (tracking vs. sitemap auditing).
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?
Implies usage context by specifying the required inputs (business name and location), but offers no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance or mention of alternative 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.