create_intentGenerate search intent analysis for a guide
Analyzes search intent for a guide and optionally analyzes provided content against that intent. Note: This endpoint uses tokens (check /api/v1/tokens-usage for the cost, might vary).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | Optional content to analyze against the intent (only after intent analysis was created) | |
| guideId | Yes | ID of the guide |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses token usage and cost variability, which is helpful. However, it does not explain idempotency, side effects, or whether the tool modifies data beyond creation.
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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The additional note is separated but adds value. Slightly disjointed structure, but overall efficient.
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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, token usage, and optional content analysis. Missing return value info, but still fairly complete given complexity.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description repeats the schema's note about content analysis timing but adds no new meaning beyond the structured data.
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 generates search intent analysis for a guide, using specific verb+resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_intent (retrieve) and delete_intent (delete).
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?
The description implies usage (analyzing intent for a guide) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites or 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.