Scan up to 10 public domains in one call: for each domain, the Sellular visibility score (0-100, A-F) and whether llms.txt exists, plus directory opportunities. Returns partial results with a per-domain error instead of failing the whole batch. Debits the rate limiter once per domain (results cache 24h per domain). Use for outreach research across a prospect list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domains | Yes | 1-10 domains or full URLs to scan. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses partial results with per-domain errors instead of whole-batch failure, rate-limiter debit once per domain, and 24-hour caching per domain. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking the tool.
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?
Four sentences with no filler: purpose and outputs, failure behavior, rate-limit/cache cost, and use case. The most important facts are front-loaded in the opening clause, and every sentence contributes new information.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential return fields, error behavior, and operational costs an agent needs to call the tool and interpret results. It is sufficiently complete for a single-parameter batch 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the domains array, its bounds, item type, and URL acceptance. The description adds the 'public domains' scope and per-domain evaluation semantics, but does not meaningfully go beyond what the schema already provides.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: scanning up to 10 public domains in one call, then enumerates the concrete outputs (visibility score 0-100/A-F, llms.txt existence, directory opportunities). The 'bulk' framing and 'up to 10' clearly distinguish it from singular sibling tools like scan_domain even though no sibling is named.
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 an explicit when-to-use context: 'Use for outreach research across a prospect list.' It implies single-domain scans would belong elsewhere, but it does not name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.
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.