List saved SEO audits from the local profile, including ID, date, URL, and status, to review past audit results without web queries.
Lista las auditorías guardadas en el perfil local, con id, fecha, URL y estado. No consulta la web ni crea archivos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and closed-world behavior; the description adds concrete value by enumerating the returned fields and confirming no network access or file writes. It does not describe ordering or the meaning of 'estado', but for a simple listing tool that is a minor gap.
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 brief sentences, front-loaded with what it returns and followed by the scoping constraint. No filler and nothing left dangling.
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 read-only local listing with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields and side-effect profile. The only missing piece an agent needs is what 'limit' controls.
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 0% and the description never mentions the single optional 'limit' parameter, its default of 20 or the 100 cap. The one parameter the agent must reason about is fully undocumented in both structured and natural-language form.
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 (lists saved audits) plus the identifying fields returned (id, date, URL, status). It implicitly separates itself from seo_audit_site/seo_audit_save by noting it neither hits the web nor creates files, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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 negative clauses ('no consulta la web ni crea archivos') give useful when-not context, steering the agent away from it for running or saving audits. However, no alternative tool is named and no prerequisite is stated, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.