analyze_site_healthGet a one-call site health report with top pages, traffic, indexing status, mobile usability, and last crawl time to identify and fix issues.
One-call site health report: top pages with traffic, indexing status, mobile usability, and last crawl time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | Yes | ||
| site_url | Yes | Property URL | |
| start_date | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only lists output contents. It implies a read-only analysis (health report) but does not state side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or prerequisites like whether the site must already be added.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose and lists its key outputs without any redundant phrasing. Every word contributes value, making it highly efficient.
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?
Even though an output schema exists, the description omits crucial context: it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., site must be added), potential limitations, or how this tool differs from similar reporting tools. Without annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly in a broader workflow.
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 coverage is only 33% (site_url has a description). The description adds no meaning to start_date or end_date, such as their format or role in the report. It mentions traffic and indexing but does not connect them to parameters, failing to compensate for the low schema 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?
The description clearly states the tool provides a 'site health report' with specific components (traffic, indexing, mobile usability, last crawl time). The verb 'analyze' and resource 'site health' are specific, making the purpose distinct from general analytics tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_performance_overview or get_site_details.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'One-call' implies a quick summary, but there are no explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.