Submit one or more URLs to IndexNow for near-instant indexing by Bing and Yandex. Requires an IndexNow key that YOU control and have already hosted at https:///.txt — this tool does not create that key for you.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Your IndexNow key, already hosted at https://<host>/<key>.txt | |
| urls | Yes | One URL or an array of URLs, all on the same host. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does disclose the main side effect—submitting URLs to external search engines—and an explicit non-behavior: 'this tool does not create that key for you.' However, it does not mention failure modes, rate limits, response/result behavior, or what happens when a key is invalid, leaving notable gaps for an external submission operation.
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 two sentences with no filler: the core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers the critical prerequisite and an explicit exclusion ('does not create that key'). Every clause earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 two-parameter submission tool, the description covers the action, the external effect, and the only prerequisite an agent must confirm before calling. There is no output schema, but the expected outcome (near-instant indexing by Bing and Yandex) is stated, and both input requirements are fully described through the schema and description.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the same-host constraint for urls and the hosted-key requirement for key. The description restates 'one or more URLs' and the key requirement but does not add new parameter-level detail. This matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.
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 ('Submit') with a clear object ('one or more URLs') and a specific target system ('IndexNow for near-instant indexing by Bing and Yandex'). This clearly distinguishes it from the audit, backlink, and link-analysis sibling tools. It also adds a key prerequisite that further clarifies what the tool does and does not do.
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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when URLs need to be submitted to IndexNow for faster indexing by Bing and Yandex. It also names the essential precondition (an already-hosted IndexNow key), giving the agent actionable context. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool appears to serve the same purpose, so this omission is minor.
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 distinct actions, but backlinks_for_domain and top_linkers_for_domain overlap significantly since both return ranked linking domains with authority and link counts, differing mainly in scope. The descriptions do clarify one is a full payload and the other a quick skim, so an agent can usually choose correctly.
All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but conventions are mixed: several are noun phrases like site_audit and domain_authority_score, some are verb-first like find_link_prospects, and a couple are object-verb like schema_validate and indexnow_submit. The set is understandable but lacks a single consistent naming pattern.
13 tools is appropriate for a backlink and SEO-focused server, fitting comfortably in the well-scoped range. Each area—backlink analysis, AI visibility, site auditing, and indexing—has dedicated tools without the set feeling bloated.
The backlink workflow is well covered: scoring, listing, overlapping linkers, prospect discovery, toxic-link flags, and live verification all exist. Minor gaps remain, such as no per-URL or anchor-level backlink data and no rank-tracking or keyword research, but the core stated purpose is served without major dead ends.