get_keyword_planGet the website's scheduled keyword/content plan: which keywords are planned, their scheduled dates and statuses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| website_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety traits: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds what the plan contains, but no additional operational behavior such as authentication needs, rate limits, or response format caveats. It neither contradicts annotations nor significantly extends 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the key returned information efficiently, which is ideal for a simple one-parameter tool.
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 retrieval with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently lists the response contents: keywords, scheduled dates, and statuses. It could mention other possible fields or behavior when no plan exists, but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward tool.
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?
There is only one parameter, website_id, and the schema gives its name and integer type but no description beyond that. The tool description's 'website's' clarifies that website_id selects the website, but it does not add meaningful extra detail such as required format, validation, or related entities.
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 names the exact resource: the website's scheduled keyword/content plan, including keywords, scheduled dates, and statuses. This clearly distinguishes it from generate_keyword_plan and other sibling retrieval 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 this tool is for retrieving an existing scheduled plan, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of generate_keyword_plan, get_article_status, or list_articles. There is no direct comparison or exclusion, leaving the selection primarily to inference.
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.