Diff a scan against the previous scan of the same domain: health movement plus the issue codes that were fixed or newly appeared/regressed. Use this when auditing in a loop to verify fixes landed and nothing regressed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id | Yes | The current scan id; the previous scan of the same domain is found automatically. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must bear the transparency burden. It states the previous scan is found automatically and lists outputs, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, permissions needed, or error handling.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and output. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.
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 one required param and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (health movement, issue changes). Could mention additional details like format or error cases, but sufficient for a simple diff 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?
Schema coverage is 100% (only scan_id described). Description adds meaning: 'the previous scan of the same domain is found automatically,' explaining parameter behavior beyond the schema.
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 'Diff a scan against the previous scan' with specific outputs: health movement and issue codes fixed/regressed. It distinguishes from siblings like get_issue_detail, get_report, etc., which focus on single scans or reports.
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?
Explicit usage context: 'Use this when auditing in a loop to verify fixes landed and nothing regressed.' Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is clear enough.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: submit scan (scan_url), retrieve report in JSON or Markdown (get_report, get_report_markdown), drill into an issue (get_issue_detail), and compare scans (diff_scan). No overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., scan_url, get_report, diff_scan). Format variants like get_report_markdown are logical extensions, not inconsistencies.
Five tools perfectly cover the SEO auditing workflow: initiating a scan, retrieving results in two formats, expanding issue details, and comparing scans. The count is neither excessive nor minimal.
The tool set covers the essential lifecycle: scan submission, result retrieval in multiple formats, issue detail expansion, and diffing. Missing list_scans or cancel_scan, but these are minor gaps; agents can work with existing tools.
