Score 2-5 public websites and rank them by visibility score, side by side, each with grade and its top strengths/weaknesses. Use to benchmark a site against competitors and explain who wins and why.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | 2-5 domains or full URLs to compare. |
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. It explains the output (rank, grade, strengths/weaknesses) but does not disclose whether it is read-only or any side effects. Since it's a comparison/analysis tool, it's likely non-destructive, but that is not explicitly stated.
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 primary action and output. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately conveys the result format (ranked list with grades and strengths/weaknesses). It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but for a simple one-parameter tool it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 parameter 'urls' with a clear description. The tool description adds context about purpose but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies due to high coverage.
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?
Description clearly states the tool scores 2-5 public websites and ranks them by visibility, with a specific verb (score, rank) and resource (websites). It distinguishes from siblings like get_visibility_score (single site) and seo_audit_summary by focusing on comparison.
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 states 'Use to benchmark a site against competitors and explain who wins and why,' giving clear context for when to invoke. Does not name alternative tools explicitly but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select correctly.
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.