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 valuable context beyond this: it is 'free,' describes the output contents (issue groups, trend, performance, etc.), and states that seo_fix moves are 'minted from it.' No contradiction with annotations, and it enriches understanding of what the tool provides.
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 three sentences: content summary, usage recommendation, and parameter tip. It is front-loaded with what the tool does, efficient, and every sentence earns its place with no fluff.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is thorough. It covers the return content, usage timing, relationship to other tools, read-only/free nature, and parameter usage. No significant gaps remain.
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% with a clear description: 'Include the per-page audit detail. Default false: the grouped issues only.' The description's 'Pass include_pages for the per-page detail' is redundant but reinforces the parameter's purpose. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.
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: issue groups with severity and affected pages, the weekly score trend, page performance, links and authority, and day-0 search ranks.' It uses a specific verb-resource relationship ('get_seo' returns an SEO audit) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on this audit and its role in minting seo_fix moves.
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?
Explicitly says when to use: 'Read before any SEO work of your own; the Feed seo_fix moves are minted from it.' This gives clear context and prerequisite positioning. While no alternatives are named, the tool's unique role in the SEO workflow makes the guidance strong.
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 follow a clear action+resource pattern (get_, list_, set_, ship_, etc.) with distinct purposes. A few boundaries could cause confusion, such as get_move vs get_output (both return drafts) and ship_move vs set_output_status (both mark things shipped), though descriptions mitigate this sufficiently.
The overwhelming majority use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming (list_feed, ship_move, get_visibility). The only outlier is 'whoami', a common convention but not verb_noun; otherwise the pattern is highly predictable.
At 41 tools, the surface is well over the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, this volume places significant cognitive load on agents and suggests some consolidation or modularization could help.
Core workflows for moves and outputs are covered (create/list/get/update/ship/skip/undo). However, the tool descriptions reference 'approve_output' as the publishing action, yet that tool is absent from the list, leaving a dead end for channel distribution. There are also no tools for editing competitors or managing Memory pages beyond recording insights.