get_citation_sourcesThe domains AI engines actually cite in answers matching this category, most-cited first, with whether this business appears on each. Getting mentioned there moves visibility more than on-site changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Read-only behavior is already covered by readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: ordering is by most-cited first, the tool indicates whether this business appears on each domain, and it reports actual AI citations. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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 tightly written sentences deliver the core output, ordering, and the business-appearance flag, then end with an actionable insight. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.
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 parameters and a read-only annotation, the description covers the essential return information: a ranked list of domains with a business-presence indicator. It is complete for an agent to know what the tool will produce and why it matters.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and it correctly frames the implicit scope as 'answers matching this category.'
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 clearly states the tool returns the domains AI engines cite in answers for a category, ranked most-cited first, and indicates whether the business appears on each. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_cited_queries (queries vs domains) and get_mentions (mentions vs citation sources).
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 gives clear strategic context: use this to find where being mentioned matters more than on-site changes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools.
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 have clearly distinct objects: answers, trajectories, citations, mentions, traffic, scores, and briefs. A few pairs like get_citation_sources vs get_source_profile and get_rivals vs get_share_of_voice overlap thematically, but their descriptions clarify different granularity and purpose.
All 16 tools follow an identical get_ + snake_case noun phrase pattern, such as get_agent_view, get_share_of_voice, and get_question_trajectories. This makes the tool set highly predictable and easy to navigate.
At 16 tools, the set sits just above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool addresses a distinct facet of AI visibility monitoring. The count feels justified rather than bloated, though it is slightly heavy for a read-only monitor.
The suite covers the full read-only monitoring lifecycle: visibility scores, raw answers, question histories, competitor comparisons, cited sources, mentions, traffic, benchmarks, action plans, personas, and content briefs. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations for the stated purpose.