serp_positionFor queries you name: who is on the results page, where you sit among them, and which domains are consistently above you.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Search Console property | |
| keywords | Yes | Up to 10 queries |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description outlines what is returned (position, domains above) but omits behavioral traits like data freshness, error handling (e.g., invalid keywords), or rate limits. No annotations to supplement, so description carries full burden and falls short.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded and informative. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy.
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?
Given no output schema, the description does not explain return format or pagination. With only 2 well-documented parameters, coverage is acceptable but could benefit from more detail on how results are delivered or ordered.
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 documents both parameters (site, keywords) with descriptions. Description adds context by connecting parameters to the tool's output, but no extra syntax or format guidance. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description is specific: it names the resource (SERP position for queries) and three distinct outputs (who is on the page, user's position, domains above). This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like competitor_gap or index_coverage.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. Usage is implied ('for queries you name') but no mention of when to prefer this over competitors like competitor_gap or query_match. Lacks exclusions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of SEO analysis: budget, backlinks, competitor gaps, indexing, keyword data, page performance, query insights, and SERP positions. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case noun_noun pattern (e.g., account_status, backlink_profile), making them predictable and easy to interpret.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for SEO analysis, covering key areas without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The tool set covers major SEO analysis domains (indexing, keywords, backlinks, competitors, on-page performance), but lacks a tool for tracking changes over time or providing actionable recommendations (e.g., fix suggestions).