serpmantics

create_eeat

create_eeat

Start an E-E-A-T analysis on a guide content

Starts an asynchronous E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) analysis on the HTML content provided for a given guide. The analysis runs in the background — use GET /api/v1/eeat to poll for results until status is done (or failed).

Note: This endpoint uses tokens (check /api/v1/tokens-usage for the cost, might vary).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`guideId`	Yes	ID of the guide to analyze
`html_content`	Yes	HTML of the article to analyze (without `<mark>` tags)

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It describes async behavior, background execution, and polling. Missing details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or side effects (e.g., token deduction).

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?

Four sentences total, front-loaded with purpose. Conveyed essential info without fluff. Could condense the polling instruction slightly, but overall efficient.

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?

Given no output schema and asynchronous complexity, the description adequately tells the agent what to do: start analysis, then poll for results. Missing details on the response format or how to interpret statuses, but covers key workflow.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds extra context for html_content: 'without <mark> tags', which is not in the schema. This provides meaningful guidance beyond the raw property description.

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?

Clearly states it starts an E-E-A-T analysis on guide content. The verb 'start' and resource 'E-E-A-T analysis' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_eeat_competitors, leaving ambiguity for an agent.

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?

Mentions the asynchronous nature and polling endpoint, and notes token usage. However, it lacks explicit conditions for when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention prerequisites like guide existence or HTML format requirements.

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

All serpmantics tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resources (guides, eeat, intent, internal_links, meta, outline, score, credits, tokens). However, some pairs like create_eeat and create_eeat_competitors are very similar and could cause confusion, though their descriptions clarify the difference.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools consistently use a verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, delete_). Minor inconsistencies include 'get_aissistant_tokens' (typo) and 'get_credit_ledger' (singular vs plural), but overall the pattern is clear.

Tool Count4/5

28 tools is on the higher end but justifiable for a comprehensive SEO analysis platform covering guides, multiple AI features, EEAT, credits, and tokens. A few tools could be merged (e.g., get_credits and get_aissistant_tokens), but the count is still reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers CRUD for guides and most AI features, plus token/credit management. A notable gap is the lack of a get_score tool after create_score, and some features like updating EEAT analysis are absent. Overall, the core workflows are supported.

Resources

Need Help?