CrunchJunkie

list_site_audit_issues

Read-only

The issues of a client's SEO audit crawl, in the audit's order: priority (P1 = an Error on a key page or a site-wide Error), then Google clicks on the affected pages, then AI answers citing them, then pages affected. Each with severity, category, pages and key pages affected, new / fixed since the previous crawl of the same scope (null when not comparable), the value on the affected pages with its window, a one-line whyFirst, and whether it is muted. Filters: category, severity, priority, newOnly, includeMuted. total counts every matching issue; rows are capped.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_site_audit_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Rows returned, default 50.
`crawlId`	No	A finished crawl. Default: the latest that ran to the end.
`newOnly`	No	Only issues with pages new since the previous comparable crawl.
`category`	No	Only this category.
`clientId`	Yes	Client id (from list_clients).
`priority`	No	Only this priority (1, 2 or 3).
`severity`	No	Only this severity.
`includeMuted`	No	Also the issues muted or ignored (with a reason) by the team.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnly/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses result ordering, the priority definition, comparison-to-previous-crawl behavior with null semantics, returned fields, muted-state handling, and the distinction between total matches and capped rows. That is substantial behavioral context for an agent.

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?

The description is dense but front-loads the resource and ordering logic, and each detail about fields, filters, or totals is useful. It is somewhat run-on, but not padded with redundant wording.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex filtered list tool with no output schema, the description explains the returned fields, priority ordering, comparison semantics, filtering, and row-cap behavior. It gives an agent enough context to call the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented. The description restates the filter names and adds meaning to priority ordering, but does not add much parameter-level syntax or defaults beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states a specific verb/resource: it lists the issues of a client's SEO audit crawl. It is distinguishable from detail-oriented siblings like get_site_audit_issue by being a plural, filtered list, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the filter list and ordering explanation, not stated as when-to-use guidance. It does not say when to use this instead of get_site_audit_issue, list_site_audit_pages, or get_crawl_insights.

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?