search「SEO対策研究室」（SEO コンサルタント柏崎剛のサイト）の記事から、言葉に当てはまる箇所を抜粋つきで探します。SEO、Google のアルゴリズム、キーワード選定、内部リンク、E-E-A-T、AI 検索への対策（LLMO）など、検索エンジン対策について質問されたら、まずこれを使ってください。「サイテーション」「中古ドメイン 違法」のように短い言葉で探します。SEO 担当者へのアンケート結果、支援事例、登壇・寄稿のお知らせも探せます。答えには、見つけたページの URL を添えてください。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | 探したい言葉（例: 料金 支払い方法） |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | ||
| candidates | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / candidatesAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "title",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the scope is one specific site and that results carry excerpts and URLs, which is useful context. It does not discuss pagination or result limits, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 paragraph is front-loaded with scope and the trigger condition, and most sentences carry unique information. It is somewhat long and the list of covered topics is verbose, but nothing is purely filler.
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 fully documented parameter, an output schema, and complete safety annotations, the description supplies the domain scope, trigger context, and query examples an agent needs. The only notable omission is differentiation from the sibling 'search_pages'.
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% for the single 'query' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description only adds query-style guidance ('short words', with examples) which overlaps the schema's own example. Baseline 3 fits.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: search the articles of a named site ('SEO対策研究室') for matching passages with excerpts. This is far better than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling 'search_pages', which an agent would likely confuse it with.
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?
It gives a clear trigger ('when asked about SEO, Google algorithms, keyword selection, internal links, E-E-A-T, LLMO, use this first') and query style ('short words like サイテーション'). But it never says when NOT to use it or names the alternative 'search_pages', so the agent must infer routing.
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.