serpmantics

get_eeat

get_eeat

Get E-E-A-T analysis results

Retrieves the result of an E-E-A-T analysis. Either pass eeatId (returned by POST /api/v1/eeat) to fetch a specific analysis, or pass guideId to fetch the latest analysis for that guide.

Poll this endpoint until status is done (results available) or failed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`eeatId`	No	ID of a specific analysis (returned by POST /api/v1/eeat). Either `eeatId` or `guideId` must be provided.
`guideId`	No	ID of the guide whose latest analysis should be returned. Either `eeatId` or `guideId` must be provided.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses polling behavior and status handling, but lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or error states beyond status.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Two short paragraphs convey all essential information.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return status and polling behavior adequately. It could mention more about error handling, but it is sufficient for effective use.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining that eeatId comes from a POST call and guideId retrieves the latest analysis, providing context beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it retrieves E-E-A-T analysis results, distinguishes between fetching by eeatId or guideId, and is distinct from sibling tools like create_eeat (which creates) and get_eeat_competitors (which gets competitors).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides clear guidance on polling until status is done or failed, and explains the two ways to retrieve analysis. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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?