Skip to main content
Glama

Shareable Report Link

report_url
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the public, shareable HTML report URL for a domain (https://seoscoreapi.com/report/{domain}). Useful for sending results to a client without exposing an API key. Makes no request and uses no quota.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "report_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesBare domain without protocol or path, e.g. example.com.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic shareable report URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the non-obvious behavior that no API request is made and no quota is used, plus the exact URL shape returned. That is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences, the identity of the tool first and the cost/usage context second, with zero redundant wording. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, no-side-effect URL builder with an output schema, the description covers what is returned, the exact format, the access/no-key benefit, and the no-quota guarantee. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the bare-domain constraint; the URL template in the description only loosely reinforces how {domain} is inserted. No additional parameter meaning is added beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the public, shareable HTML report URL for a domain') and even gives the concrete URL template, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. This is clearly distinguishable from the audit/compute siblings, which perform work rather than construct a link.

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?

Explains the use case ('sending results to a client without exposing an API key') and clarifies that no quota is consumed, which tells the agent to prefer it over re-running an audit for sharing. It does not name any alternative or exclusion explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.