domainOverviewGet an SEO overview for any domain with key rankings and analytics. Input a domain to retrieve its assessment data from SE Ranking.
Fetch domain overview (v1/domain/overview)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain for which to retrieve database data. |
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation and endpoint, without explaining response behavior, limitations, or any side-effect/read-only guarantees beyond the implication of 'Fetch'.
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 concise sentence with the key endpoint included, making it easy to scan. It repeats the tool title somewhat, but the endpoint reference adds useful precision without introducing clutter.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, yet the description does not explain what a domain overview contains or how this endpoint differs from the many adjacent overview-related tools. An agent would struggle to know what response to expect or which sibling to choose.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'domain' parameter, including its own description, so the description does not need to add much. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already handles the semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and names the resource ('domain overview') plus the endpoint (v1/domain/overview), so an agent knows what the tool operates on. However, it does not differentiate this from closely related siblings like domainOverviewDb, domainOverviewWorldwide, or domainOverviewHistory.
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 description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling overview tools. Given the large sibling list with overlapping names, the lack of any selection criteria is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.