Assign custom tags to keywords or pages to categorize and streamline SEO analysis and tracking.
Manually apply a tag to specific keywords and/or pages.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "apply_tag"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Manually apply' but omits critical details: whether it's idempotent, overwrites existing tags, requires specific permissions, or what response to expect. The agent is left in the dark.
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 description is extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It could be expanded without becoming verbose.
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?
The tool lacks defined parameters and output schema; the description does not fill these gaps. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without guessing the input format. Essential context is missing.
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?
The schema has no defined parameters but allows arbitrary inputs via additionalProperties. The description adds no guidance on what parameters to pass (e.g., tag name, keyword/page identifier). With schema coverage effectively empty, the description fails to compensate.
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 clearly states the action (apply a tag) and the targets (keywords and/or pages), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_tag and remove_tag. However, it doesn't specify that the tag must already exist, which leaves some ambiguity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., tag must exist) or context in which it's appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.