Get search traffic broken down by device type (desktop, mobile, tablet). Requires Google Search Console to be connected. Direct the user to rankparse.com/dashboard/integrations to connect it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Property URL e.g. "https://example.com" | |
| endDate | Yes | End date YYYY-MM-DD | |
| startDate | Yes | Start date YYYY-MM-DD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the crucial integration requirement (GSC must be connected) and user action, which is valuable auth/integration context beyond the structured data. No contradiction with 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?
Two concise sentences front-load the primary function and device types, followed by a necessary prerequisite and actionable instruction. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.
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 simple read-only tool with 3 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the essential purpose, device breakdown, and the connection prerequisite. Slight deduction for not explicitly describing the return format, but the name and description make it predictable.
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?
Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (site, startDate, endDate), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('search traffic broken down by device type'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling GSC breakdown tools like country breakdown or date trends. It names the exact dimensions (desktop, mobile, tablet), making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
Provides clear context by stating the prerequisite that Google Search Console must be connected, and gives a specific action for the user to connect it. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the prerequisite and directive serve as useful usage guidance, earning a 4 rather than a 3.
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.
