CrunchJunkie

create_site_audit_task

Create a task in the Approvals queue from an SEO audit issue (or some of its pages) for a client: title (default the issue's name), note, assignee (a member's user id) and due date; its body names the issue, the crawl, the pages (up to 20) and the fix. Nothing is sent to anyone; people close it in Approvals. Without confirm:true it returns a preview of the task.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "clientId": "<clientId>",
      "issueId": "<issueId>"
    },
    "name": "create_site_audit_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	A note for whoever does it.
`urls`	No	Only these pages of the issue. Default: the highest-priority pages.
`dueAt`	No	Due date, YYYY-MM-DD.
`title`	No	Task title. Default: the issue's name.
`confirm`	No	true creates the task. Omit to preview. With confirm:true, also pass the preview's previewToken.
`crawlId`	No	The crawl it comes from. Default: the latest that ran to the end.
`issueId`	Yes	Issue id (from list_site_audit_issues).
`assignee`	No	A workspace member's user id.
`clientId`	Yes	Client id (from list_clients).
`previewToken`	No	With confirm:true: the previewToken from this tool's preview (valid 15 minutes, once, for exactly the previewed arguments).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that nothing is sent to anyone and that people close the item in Approvals, plus the dry-run contract: without confirm:true the call returns a preview of the task rather than creating it. That is exactly the kind of mutation-safety context annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The first sentence is a dense run-on with stacked parentheticals, which costs a little readability but every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Ten parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers the create-vs-preview flow, the defaulting behavior, and the resulting task body, which is what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around the preview return payload and what happens on an expired or reused previewToken.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it maps title/note/assignee/dueAt to their roles, notes that title defaults to the issue's name, and explains how the generated body is composed from the issue, crawl, pages (capped at 20) and fix. It stops short of clarifying the preview/previewToken handshake, which lives only in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — creating an Approvals-queue task from an SEO audit issue (or a subset of its pages) — plus the scope of what the task body contains. This clearly separates it from decide_approval, list_pending_approvals, and the read-only site-audit tools in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it (turning an audit issue into an actionable Approvals item) and points at the sibling that supplies issueId (list_site_audit_issues). It does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative such as decide_approval or set_site_audit_issue_status, so no true exclusion guidance is present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All CrunchJunkie tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?