Drill into one issue code: every affected URL plus step-by-step remediation (what to change, why, and when it's a false alarm). Call this after get_report_markdown to expand a code from the collapsed table before applying fixes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The issue code to expand, e.g. "links.broken_internal" or "title.too_long". | |
| scan_id | Yes | The scan id returned by scan_url. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears burden. It discloses that it returns URLs and remediation details, but doesn't mention authentication, rate limits, or if it's read-only. Lacks full behavioral disclosure.
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: first explains function, second gives usage guidance. No extraneous text. Highly efficient.
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?
Describes return content (URLs and remediation) but lacks structure details. No output schema, so more specific format description would improve completeness.
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% with descriptions. The description adds example patterns for 'code' and clarifies that 'scan_id' comes from scan_url, adding value beyond 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?
Clearly states it drills into one issue code, showing affected URLs and remediation steps. Differentiates from siblings by specifying it follows get_report_markdown.
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?
Explicitly says to call after get_report_markdown to expand a code before applying fixes. Provides clear context but no explicit when-not or alternatives for other scenarios.
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.
