create_outlineGenerate content outline for a guide
Generates a content outline based on SERP analysis for a guide. Note: This endpoint uses tokens (check /api/v1/tokens-usage for the cost, might vary).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guideId | Yes | ID of the guide |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description mentions token usage and cost variability, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing outlines), error behavior, or whether it modifies the guide state.
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?
Description is concise, with a brief note about token cost. Every sentence adds value, though the note could be more seamlessly integrated.
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 1-param tool with no output schema or annotations, the description lacks key details: return value format, prerequisites (e.g., guide must exist), and whether it replaces an existing outline.
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 coverage is 100% (guideId described as 'ID of the guide'). Description adds context ('based on SERP analysis') but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond schema.
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 a content outline for a guide, explicitly mentioning SERP analysis. This differentiates it from siblings like get_outline (retrieve) or delete_outline (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 implicitly suggests use when needing a new outline, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., get_outline for existing outlines) or prerequisites like guide existence.
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.