Relationships API JSON lookup for related websites by domain.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"lookup": "<lookup>"
},
"name": "relationships-api"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookup | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which is surprising for something described as a "lookup" and is never explained — the description gives no hint of what state could change or what auth/credential requirements apply. No information is provided on result size, pagination, or rate limits. Beyond the annotations, the description adds essentially no behavioral context.
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?
A single short sentence with no wasted words, which is good, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economy. It is front-loaded but says too little to be actionable.
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 and a one-parameter schema lacking any description, the definition should explain what a "JSON lookup" returns (related domain list? scores? relationship types?) and what the non-read-only annotation implies. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unable to predict the response or side effects.
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% for the single required parameter, so the description must carry the semantics. "By domain" does identify that the `lookup` parameter takes a domain, which is real added meaning, but it leaves format ambiguous (bare domain, URL, comma-separated list?) and does not say whether one or many domains are accepted.
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?
"Relationships API JSON lookup for related websites by domain" names a resource (related websites) and an input dimension (domain), so the agent can guess it returns relationship data for a domain. However, "Relationships API" restates the tool name, and it offers no differentiation from plausible siblings such as domain-api, recommendations-api, or tags-api. The purpose is inferable but not precisely bounded.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling lookups (domain-api, recommendations-api, redirects-api, etc.), nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must guess from the name alone which of several domain-oriented endpoints answers its question.
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.