The Growth Snapshot this product run started from: positioning, the discoverability score, the prioritised leverage actions, the competitor set, and the day-0 SEO and AI visibility baselines. The stable business context; for live signal data use get_visibility and get_seo. Read-only, free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only, free.' Beyond annotations, it adds behavioral context that the data is stable and not live, which helps the agent understand the nature of the response. It doesn't contradict annotations, and the additional context is valuable.
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, front-loaded with the core content and immediately followed by a sharp usage alternative. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the snapshot contains, clarifies it's stable, provides a pointer to live alternatives, and mentions read-only/free nature. No gaps remain given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, matching the empty schema exactly (schema coverage 100%). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain parameter meanings; the baseline of 4 applies since the schema is fully self-explanatory.
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 returns the Growth Snapshot, enumerating specific components (positioning, discoverability score, prioritised leverage actions, competitor set, day-0 SEO/AI baselines). It also distinguishes it from live-data sibling tools by calling it 'stable business context.' This is a specific verb+resource definition that effectively separates it from similar-sounding tools like get_visibility and get_seo.
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 provides use context: it is the stable snapshot from the product run, and it directly names alternatives for live signal data ('use get_visibility and get_seo'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
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.