get_site_auditRead saved page signals and issues for one project crawl using project and report IDs, so you can review audit findings and resolve site issues.
Read saved page signals and issues for one project crawl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | Yes | The public report ID, scoped to this project. | |
| project_id | Yes | The public project ID. Project membership and token scopes are enforced. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Read saved' wording is consistent with that. It adds a little context about what is retrieved (page signals and issues for one crawl), but says nothing about whether this returns the latest crawl, result size, or any pagination/truncation behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence of ten words with no filler; the verb and scope come first. It is efficient, though it is arguably too spare given the three similarly-named audit tools.
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, the description is the only place a caller learns what comes back, and it offers just a broad phrase ('page signals and issues') with no indication of structure or volume. For a simple read-only two-parameter retrieval this is minimally adequate, but the sibling ambiguity leaves a gap.
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%, with both report_id and project_id fully documented including their ID patterns and the membership/scope enforcement note, so the schema carries parameter meaning entirely. The description adds no syntactic or semantic detail about either parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema is this complete.
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 (Read) and resource (saved page signals and issues) scoped to a single project crawl, which distinguishes it from the sibling trio run_site_audit (triggers a crawl) and list_site_audits (enumerates them). It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the scope is clear enough to select the right tool.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The word 'saved' weakly implies a crawl must already exist, but the description never tells the agent to prefer this over list_site_audits or run_site_audit, which carry nearly identical names and would be easy to confuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.