get_article_statusCheck article generation/publication status per date. Dates are YYYY-MM-DD and default to the current month. A date with has_blog=true and a blog_id means the article is ready to read via get_article.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| website_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: date format YYYY-MM-DD, default to current month, and the meaning of has_blog/blog_id as readiness indicators. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Three sentences with no filler: purpose first, then date behavior, then result interpretation. Every sentence earns its place and the critical 'ready to read via get_article' signal is included without extra verbiage.
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?
With no output schema, the description should clearly explain return values. It covers has_blog and blog_id, but the tool name mentions both generation and publication status, and the description does not clarify what other statuses may appear or how to interpret dates without has_blog=true. This leaves an agent somewhat under-informed about the full response shape.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain date format and default behavior for start_date/end_date, which are the non-obvious parameters. However, website_id is not described at all, and the exact semantics of omitted start vs. end date are not specified, leaving a partial gap.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check article generation/publication status per date.' It further distinguishes itself from the sibling get_article by stating that has_blog=true and a blog_id mean the article is ready to read via get_article. This makes the tool's role clear and separable from related 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 explicitly indicates when the result should be followed up with get_article, giving a clear usage context: check status first, then read the article if ready. It does not enumerate exclusions like 'not for indexing status', but the relationship to get_article is explicit enough for correct routing.
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 a distinct resource and action, making selection straightforward. Minor overlap exists between get_ai_search_traffic and get_search_performance's AI-assistant traffic section, and among the three search-performance reporting tools, but descriptions are clear enough to avoid major confusion.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_, generate_, get_, list_, publish_, request_, run_. The verbs are descriptive and every noun object clearly identifies the resource being acted on.
At 18 tools the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but the scope is broad enough to justify it: website management, article generation, publishing, search analytics, AI search, indexing, backlinks, and auditing. No tool feels redundant enough to remove.
The surface covers the main SEO lifecycle well: websites, keyword plans, articles, publishing, search performance, indexing, backlinks, and audits. Obvious gaps are article update/delete operations and website removal, but agents can work around these for most core workflows.