Find domains linking to a competitor but not to you: ranked link-building prospects. Under time budget the response may come back with partial=true and scored=false, meaning the results are the raw gap set without domain-authority ranking; retrying the same request usually returns a fully scored answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| domain | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true and idempotent=true. The description adds valuable runtime behavior: partial results with partial=true and scored=false under time budget, and that retrying yields a fully scored response. This goes beyond structured annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and follows with a concise behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
The description covers the tool's core purpose and key edge case (partial responses). Given the absence of an output schema and the relatively simple parameter set, it provides enough context for invocation, though it could include parameter clarification or return value details.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'domain', 'vs', or 'limit'. While the domain/vs relationship is implicit in 'competitor' vs 'you', the description does not map parameters to their meanings or provide any syntax guidance, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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's function: 'Find domains linking to a competitor but not to you: ranked link-building prospects.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') with a precise resource (competitive gap) and a clear output type (ranked prospects), distinguishing it from general backlink tools.
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 the primary use case (link-building prospect discovery) and provides specific retry guidance for partial responses ('retrying the same request usually returns a fully scored answer'). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection among sibling tools.
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.
The tool set is largely well-disambiguated with clear prefixes (get_, outreach_, zeekeo_) and detailed descriptions for each tool. Some tools like get_site_explorer and get_site_health could be confused at a glance, but their descriptions clearly separate their purposes. Overall, the naming and descriptions prevent meaningful ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent get_ prefix for data retrieval, with sub-prefixes like get_gsc_, get_page_, and outreach_/zeekeo_ for distinct workflows. There is no mixing of naming conventions (e.g., camelCase) or inconsistent verb usage. The naming pattern is uniform and predictable.
With 63 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical 3-15 tool scope, categorizing as an extreme overflow. Even for a comprehensive SEO and outreach suite, the sheer number is overwhelming and likely includes redundant or overlapping functionality. This would be confusing for agents and users alike.
The tool set covers a wide range of SEO, backlink analysis, Google Search Console data, and outreach workflows, appearing nearly complete for its stated purpose. However, several tools are marked as 'v1 stub' (e.g., get_internal_links, get_schema_markup), indicating incomplete functionality. Despite these gaps, the overall coverage is extensive and well-rounded.
