Get the full intelligence picture for a domain: site goal, ICP, sitemap structure and gaps, cross-page patterns (template issues affecting multiple pages), and scan coverage by page type. Call this at the start of any SEO session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain, e.g. example.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists what the tool returns (site goal, ICP, etc.), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on side effects, data freshness, authentication needs, or error handling, which are typical for a read operation.
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 two sentences: the first lists the tool's outputs, the second provides usage guidance. Every word is purposeful and front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.
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 the single parameter and lack of output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. It lists components of the intelligence picture, aiding the agent's decision. Missing details like invalid domain handling or result format, but still adequate for a simple retrieval tool.
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 100% and the schema already describes the 'domain' parameter as 'The domain, e.g. example.com.' The description does not add further information about the parameter, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full intelligence picture for a domain'), and lists concrete components (site goal, ICP, sitemap gaps, cross-page patterns, scan coverage). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_scan and scan_website, which focus on individual scans.
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 explicitly says 'Call this at the start of any SEO session,' providing strong guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the directive is clear and contextually sufficient.
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.
Each tool has a unique purpose: triggering scans, retrieving results by ID, obtaining full site intelligence, or getting a single actionable issue. No overlap or ambiguity.
Three tools follow verb_noun pattern (get_scan, get_site_intelligence, scan_website), but 'next_issue' deviates slightly as it omits a verb. Still, the naming is clear and consistent in style.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for an SEO analysis workflow. Each tool is essential, and the count avoids unnecessary complexity.
Covers the core workflow: scan, retrieve results, get intelligence, and get prioritized tasks. Minor gap: no way to list all scans or bulk view issues, but 'next_issue' fills the action-oriented need.
