The site-wide SEO audit: issue groups with severity and affected pages, the weekly score trend, page performance, links and authority, and day-0 search ranks. Read before any SEO work of your own; the Feed seo_fix moves are minted from it. Read-only, free. Pass include_pages for the per-page detail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_pages | No | Include the per-page audit detail. Default false: the grouped issues only. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it's 'free,' it's the source for seo_fix moves, and it lists the types of data returned. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage and parameter guidance. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisite context, and parameter hint. No wasted words.
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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's role in the broader workflow (seo_fix moves), what it returns, and how to get more detail. Annotations cover safety, and the schema covers the parameter.
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% for the single parameter include_pages, which already describes its effect. The description mentions 'Pass include_pages for the per-page detail,' but this essentially restates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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's function: 'The site-wide SEO audit' followed by a specific list of outputs (issue groups, severity, affected pages, weekly score trend, etc.). This specific verb-resource pairing (get + SEO audit) distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_competitors or get_visibility.
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Read before any SEO work of your own.' It also explains the tool's relationship to seo_fix moves, indicating it's a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions are thorough. A few pairs (e.g., ship_move vs set_output_status, dismiss_gap vs skip_move) overlap on the dismissal concept but operate on different surfaces, so an agent can usually tell them apart with careful reading.
All tool names follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_move, create_checkout, untrack_prompt). Retrieval tools consistently use get_ for single items and list_ for collections, and action verbs are precise, so the naming is fully predictable.
42 tools is heavy by any standard, exceeding the 25+ threshold in the calibration. While each tool may earn its place given the breadth of the domain, the sheer number will overwhelm an agent and complicate tool selection.
The tool set covers the main lifecycles well: moves (list/get/ship/skip/archive/undo/update), outputs (list/get/ship/redraft), connections (list/start/poll/disconnect), prompts (track/untrack/list), and scans (refresh/get/set intensity). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct edit for KB pages, but record_insight partially fills that.