get_website_statsGet content stats for a website: total articles, keywords tracked, published posts and whether SEO autopilot is enabled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| website_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the included stat categories but does not disclose potential caveats such as data freshness, permissions, or output size. This is acceptable but not exceptional given annotation coverage.
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 that wastes no words and efficiently lists all relevant output categories. It is easy to scan and directly supports tool selection.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose and enumerates expected results. The only gap is lacking any note on return format or how website_id relates to other tools like list_websites, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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%, with one integer parameter website_id. The description only says 'for a website' and does not explain that website_id is the website identifier, how to obtain it, or any format expectations. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's 'Website Id' title.
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 ('content stats') and enumerates the exact fields returned: total articles, keywords tracked, published posts, and SEO autopilot status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools without requiring schema inspection.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives is provided. While siblings like list_websites and list_articles have distinct names, the description does not clarify that this tool returns aggregate stats rather than raw lists, leaving usage context 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.