Mangools MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Tools are grouped by product prefix, but many have overlapping purposes (e.g., kwfinder_related_keywords vs kwfinder_suggested_keywords, multiple URL metric tools across products). The _post and _legacy variants add confusion. Descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some use verb_noun (create_tracking), others use noun (favorites, tracking_stats), and there are suffixes like _post, _legacy, and _reset. Mixed snake_case patterns and varying verb placement make the set feel chaotic.
Tool Count2/5
With 82 tools, the server is very heavy. While it covers multiple Mangools products, the sheer number overwhelms an agent's ability to efficiently choose. Most tools are narrowly scoped, but the count is far above typical well-scoped servers.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a wide range of SEO operations across KWFinder, SERPChecker, SERPWatcher, LinkMiner, SiteProfiler, and AIWatcher. Most resources have lifecycle coverage (create/read/update/delete) where relevant, with only minor gaps like no delete for LinkMiner exports or KWFinder keyword imports.
Average 2.9/5 across 82 of 82 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides none: no mention of request parameters, response format, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The tool is a complete black box beyond the generic 'Get' action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and lacks substance. While it is technically concise, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. Every word is generic and does not earn its place by adding operational value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complete absence of annotations, an output schema, or any useful parameter information, this description is grossly inadequate. The tool is one of many KWFinder endpoints, and the description fails to explain what 'trends' means, what inputs it takes, or what the agent can expect back. It is unusable for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema describes the two generic fields as 'Optional JSON request body' and 'Optional query string parameters', these are boilerplate and provide no tool-specific meaning. The description adds no details about what parameters 'trends' expects (e.g., keyword, country, date range). The agent has no way to construct a meaningful request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource ('Get KWFinder trends'), but 'trends' is ambiguous—does it refer to historical search volume trends, keyword trend data, or something else? It does not distinctly differentiate from sibling tools like kwfinder_keyword_details or kwfinder_related_keywords, though the resource name is unique enough to hint at a distinct endpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply restates the action without helping the agent decide between this and the many other KWFinder tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses only that the tool 'gets' competitors, implying a read operation, but no details about response shape, pagination, authorization requirements, or special behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief—a single short sentence—which makes it easy to parse, but it is under-specified to the point of providing almost no useful information. It is concise but not effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only generic parameter descriptions. The description must explain what 'competitors' means, what the tool returns, and how to use the parameters, but it does none of that. It is completely inadequate for a user to select and invoke the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (url, body, query), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, and the generic body/query parameters are already documented. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description's 'Get SiteProfiler competitors' essentially restates the tool name with a generic verb. It identifies the resource but provides no detail on what competitors data is returned or how it differs from other SiteProfiler endpoints. It is a minimal label rather than a functional description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like siteprofiler_overview or siteprofiler_backlink_profile. The sibling list contains many related SiteProfiler tools, but the description gives no contextual usage cues or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description is a single vague sentence. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the response contains, whether a URL is required, or any rate-limit or authentication considerations. The tool's observable behavior is completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks the substance needed to be useful. This is not appropriately sized; it is an under-specification rather than a model of brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole source of context. It provides almost no information about the tool's inputs, outputs, or behavior, making it inadequate for even a simple tool, especially given the large pool of sibling tools with overlapping purposes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter meaning; it doesn't even mention the 'url' parameter. Thus, the schema does the work, and the description provides no additional value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get SiteProfiler top content.' uses a verb and a resource, but it merely restates the tool name without explaining what 'top content' means (e.g., top pages by traffic? top content pieces?). It does not distinguish this tool from the several other siteprofiler_* sibling tools like overview, audience, or backlink_profile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the many sibling tools. The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or when an alternative would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Get', implying read-only, but the input schema allows a body for POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE, creating ambiguity about whether this tool can mutate data. It also omits details about authentication, rate limits, response format, or any side effects, leaving the agent with no understanding of the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at six words, which is structurally simple. However, it is under-specified given the tool's likely complexity as a request passthrough. While there is no bloat, the brevity comes at the expense of necessary information, making it merely adequate rather than well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a generic input schema, the description is the only source of context. It fails to explain what 'lookup history' means, how to filter or paginate, what the response looks like, or how this tool relates to the many sibling tools. This is completely inadequate for a tool that appears to be an arbitrary API request endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters have schema descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema descriptions are generic templates about passing body/query to endpoints, not specific to 'lookup history', and the tool description does not clarify what values should be provided. Thus, the description adds no extra value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('KWFinder lookup history'), but the resource is ambiguous and does not distinguish from sibling tools like kwfinder_kd_requests, which could also relate to lookup history. It goes beyond a tautology but lacks specificity about what 'lookup history' encompasses or what endpoint it maps to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the large number of sibling tools, the absence of any context makes it impossible for an agent to decide when to select this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get,' implying a read-only operation, but it discloses no details about return format, authentication, rate limits, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. A single vague sentence fails to convey essential context, making it less useful than a well-structured, slightly longer description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a sparse description, the tool's behavior, return values, and exact metrics are unexplained. Even a simple fetch tool should clarify what 'KD URL metrics' are and how to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (url, body, query), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already handles the semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Get KWFinder KD URL metrics,' which names a resource but leaves 'KD' undefined and offers no distinction from sibling URL metric tools like serpchecker_url_metrics or linkminer_url_metrics. It is clear the tool fetches some kind of URL metrics, but the purpose is vague without explaining what KD metrics are.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 description is a single sentence with no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose return format, permissions needed, rate limits, or potential side effects. For an API tool, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no fluff, which is concisely front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, providing only a bare restatement of the tool's name. It is not verbose, but it lacks the detail that would make the sentence earn its place effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a detail-retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the 'detail' contains (e.g., settings, prompts, statistics) or how it relates to the required 'id' parameter which is a monitor ID rather than a brand ID. The context is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior or output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: 'id' has a clear description ('AI Search Watcher monitor ID'), and 'body' and 'query' are documented as pass-through objects. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it relies on the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get AI monitoring detail for a brand' merely restates the tool name without specifying what 'detail' includes or how it differs from sibling tools like aiwatcher_monitor_settings or aiwatcher_monitor_prompts. It is vague and does not provide a clear resource or scope beyond the minimal verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites are required (e.g., having a monitor ID), or any context for when this detail retrieval is appropriate. It simply states the action without situational context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, request side effects, output format, or pagination. This is minimal transparency for an API tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the primary purpose efficiently. However, it is so brief that it verges on under-specification, but for the 'conciseness' dimension, it earns a high score for minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and a competitive sibling landscape, the one-line description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the request/response model, any required parameters (all are optional according to schema), or what 'suggested keywords' means. This leaves an agent unable to effectively use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (url, body, query), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The generic body/query descriptions are not specific to this endpoint, though.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the core function (get suggested keywords for a URL) with a clear verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like kwfinder_competitor_keywords or kwfinder_url_metrics, which may also work with URLs. The purpose is somewhat vague because 'suggested keywords' is not defined in relation to the endpoint's specific behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, or mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. An agent would have no basis for selecting this over the many other kwfinder tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action but gives no details about return format, pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and is front-loaded with the key verb and object. However, it is under-specified and does not earn its place by providing enough detail to be useful. It is concise but not complete enough to be considered well-structured for an API tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only three optional parameters. It sits among many related sibling tools, yet the description gives no context about what input is required, what the response will look like, or how this tool differs from near-names. This is far below the minimum viable description for a usable API tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The 'url' parameter is described as 'Domain or URL to analyze,' which is clear, and the generic 'body'/'query' parameters are adequately documented in the schema. The tool description itself contributes nothing extra.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a distinct resource ('competitor domains') from the KWFinder tool. It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'kwfinder_gap_analysis' or 'kwfinder_competitor_keywords' that might also deal with competitor data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not in which context it should be chosen over other competitor-analysis tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the high-level action without mentioning potential side effects, authentication requirements, file handling behavior, or whether the export is synchronous or asynchronous, leaving the agent with no insight into the tool's operational traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is so terse that it omits essential context, making it under-specified for a tool with generic parameters. It is efficient but not appropriately sized for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values and behavioral expectations. It does not mention what the CSV will contain, how to specify the keyword source, or any post-export actions. This is a serious gap for a meaningful export tool, especially given the generic body/query parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers both parameters (body and query) with generic descriptions, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, leaving the agent without guidance on what to actually include in the query or body for this export.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Export' and the resource 'keywords', with a specific output format 'CSV file'. It is distinct from sibling tools by indicating an export action for keywords, but it does not elaborate on the source or scope of the keywords, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kwfinder_lists or other export-related tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only implies a read operation via 'See' but doesn't disclose whether it returns a list, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but under-specified. It's a single sentence that conveys minimal information, similar to an under-specified placeholder rather than a concise, complete explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only generic parameters. The description doesn't clarify the scope of favorites returned, relationship to detail/delete operations, or any other behavioral context. It's insufficient for an agent to select and invoke reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter meaning, and the schema's parameter descriptions are generic placeholders rather than tool-specific semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states an action ('See') and a resource ('LinkMiner favorite links'), but it doesn't disambiguate between listing all favorites and viewing a single favorite, which is handled by the sibling linkminer_favorite_detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that favorites can be detailed, deleted, or set, and provides no context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' (implying a read operation) but does not describe the response format, whether historical data is included, any rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It restates the tool name with a verb and provides no additional structure or detail. This is closer to 'Process' than to a well-crafted, informative summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and only a minimal description. It fails to explain what 'tracking stats' means, what the response contains, or how to use the body/query parameters. For a tool with one required parameter and generic pass-through params, the description is notably incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (tracking_id, body, query) already carry descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage, defaults, or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Get SERPWatcher tracking stats'), clearly indicating it retrieves stats for a tracking. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like serpwatcher_tracking_detail or serpwatcher_reports, and 'stats' remains vague without specifying what data is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' without specifying whether this is a partial or full update, what fields are required beyond the identified ones, or how the text is passed. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified and lacks structure. It is not bloated, but it fails to provide necessary context for a tool with nested objects and multiple parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a nested body parameter and no output schema, yet the description offers no explanation of how to construct the body, what fields are available for the annotation, or what the response will be. This is critically incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters having descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it does not clarify that the annotation text likely goes in the 'body' parameter or what the 'query' parameter might do.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and resource (SERPWatcher annotation text), distinguishing it from sibling create/delete annotation tools. It is specific but does not elaborate on the full scope of what can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like serpwatcher_create_annotation or serpwatcher_delete_annotation. The verb 'update' implies the use case, but there is no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'get' which implies a read operation, but gives no details about request behavior, response format, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely terse, consisting of one short sentence. While it is not verbose, it is under-specified and lacks the structure needed to convey necessary information about a tool with optional parameters and multiple sibling tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three optional parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools in the same product family. The description provides almost no context about what audience data is returned, how to use the parameters, or how this tool relates to siteprofiler_overview or siteprofiler_competitors. This is far from complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema documents all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. However, the descriptions for 'body' and 'query' are generic passthrough boilerplate, not specific to audience data. The description text adds no additional parameter meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'SiteProfiler audience data', which aligns with the tool name. However, it does not explain what 'audience data' includes or distinguish this tool from sibling siteprofiler_* tools like siteprofiler_overview or siteprofiler_competitors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a single statement with no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or when other tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Run' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, what data it requires, whether it's synchronous, or what the response looks like. This is minimal and insufficient for an agent to predict side effects or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that is easy to parse. However, it is under-specified and essentially restates the tool name without providing additional context, so while it is concise, it does not fully earn its place by adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a generic schema with no domain-specific parameter documentation and no output schema. The description is far too minimal for an agent to understand how to construct a valid gap analysis request or interpret the response. This is completely inadequate for a tool that likely requires specific inputs such as target domains and keywords.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines only generic 'body' and 'query' objects with boilerplate descriptions about passing data to the endpoint. It does not specify any KWFinder-specific parameters like domains, keywords, or competitor sets. The description adds no parameter details, leaving the agent with no information about what to include in the request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Run') and the resource ('KWFinder keyword gap analysis'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the specific gap analysis functionality, which is unique among the listed KWFinder tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kwfinder_competitor_keywords or kwfinder_related_keywords. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context explaining the intended use case beyond the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers only 'Get all SERPWatcher tags,' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It doesn't mention read-only assurance, pagination, response format, or authentication requirements, making it insufficient for transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core action. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and specific parameter details, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information about how to invoke the tool, what the response contains, or how to handle potential edge cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains generic 'body' and 'query' parameters with boilerplate descriptions that are not specific to this endpoint. The tool description adds no parameter information, so the agent has no insight into optional parameters like filters or pagination. While schema coverage is 100%, the descriptions are unhelpful and fail to provide meaningful semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SERPWatcher tags') with scope ('all'), clearly stating the tool's function. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool serpwatcher_tracking_tags, which could be confused as returning tags for a specific tracking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when it would be appropriate to call this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete' without explaining whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects associated monitors, or any side effects. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler and front-loads the action. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, so it doesn't earn a 5 for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks annotations, output schema, and specific parameter semantics. The one-line description is grossly insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, as it doesn't explain endpoints, required identifiers, or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema's parameter descriptions are generic boilerplate about body/query and do not convey tool-specific meaning. The description does not explain what parameters should be passed to identify which prompts to delete, and with 0 required parameters, the invocation semantics are unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource 'AI Search Watcher prompts', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like aiwatcher_delete_monitor and aiwatcher_delete_tracking. However, it lacks scope details such as whether it deletes a single prompt, multiple prompts, or all prompts, so it's not fully specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't mention related tools like aiwatcher_prompt_detail or aiwatcher_monitor_prompts, leaving the agent without context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a mutating operation, but no details are given about side effects, idempotency, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name, offering no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy or fluff, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but for conciseness alone it earns a solid score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, one required, and no output schema or annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not mention required parameters, what the annotation contains, how it relates to tracking IDs, or what response to expect. An agent would not be able to confidently invoke this tool based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (body, query, tracking_id) described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a SERPWatcher annotation' uses a specific verb ('Create') and clearly identifies the resource (annotation) within the SERPWatcher tool. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update/delete annotations through the verb, though it lacks detail on what an annotation is or how it relates to trackings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., update_annotation, create_tracking). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints, so the agent gets no help in deciding when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it discloses nothing — no permissions required, no mention of whether the update is partial or full, no side effects, and no return value. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (six words) but essentially restates the tool name, providing minimal value. While it is front-loaded and free of fluff, it is under-specified and does not earn its place as a meaningful explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral disclosure, this one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not explain how parameters like body and query relate to the update operation, nor what the expected response or side effects are.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema already explains tag_id and tracking_id, and the generic body/query parameters are adequately described as pass-through fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and the resource (SERPWatcher tag), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that update other entities (trackings, reports, annotations). However, it lacks specific detail about what updating a tag entails (e.g., name, color), so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as serpwatcher_create_tracking_tag, serpwatcher_assign_tag, or serpwatcher_update_tracking. The description does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that the tool retrieves history, implying a read operation, but provides no details on pagination, response format, rate limits, or required authentication. This is a significant gap for a tool with generic pass-through parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. However, it is so terse that it misses opportunities to add valuable context, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has generic pass-through parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only names the purpose without explaining expected inputs, response characteristics, or integration with the Mangools API. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the descriptions for 'body' and 'query' are generic boilerplate applicable to any endpoint, offering no tool-specific meaning. The description itself does not mention any parameter names or structures, leaving the agent without clues on what to pass for a KD history lookup.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'KWFinder KD lookup history', which clearly states the core function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'kwfinder_requests' by focusing specifically on KD history, though it does not elaborate on what constitutes 'history' in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'kwfinder_requests' or 'kwfinder_limits'. The description simply states what it does without any context on appropriate use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only says 'Get items' with no mention of return format, pagination, error handling, or whether it is a read-only operation. The agent cannot infer safety or response details from the description alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no wasted words. It is efficient, though it borders on being too brief to be truly useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema and has a very thin description. The agent cannot anticipate what 'items' will contain (e.g., keyword metrics), whether pagination is involved, or any list-specific behavior. This is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a rich list of keyword data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (list_id, body, query), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, but the schema is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'items in a KWFinder list,' which clearly states the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kwfinder_lists (which likely returns lists themselves) by specifying 'items'. However, it doesn't elaborate on scope or variants, so it stops short of fully differentiating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as kwfinder_lists, kwfinder_add_list_keywords, or kwfinder_create_list. The description simply states the action without any context about use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does 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 says 'Get' the list, with no mention of whether this is a read-only operation, pagination, API rate limits, output format, or how 'related' keywords are determined. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording, making it very concise. However, the brevity leaves out important context, so it is efficient but minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and the large set of similar kwfinder_* siblings, the description is too thin to be complete. It fails to explain what 'related keywords' means, how to construct a request, or how this tool differs from others, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, including 'keyword' as 'Seed keyword or exact keyword.' The description adds no additional meaning about how parameters interact or what values are expected, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since no compensation is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('related keywords list from KWFinder'), making the primary purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like kwfinder_suggested_keywords or kwfinder_competitor_keywords, which could cause confusion about which to select.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any contextual triggers, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection among the many kwfinder_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only uses the verb 'Get', which implicitly suggests a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any side effects, return format, pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral details. For a tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and contains no redundant words, but it is under-specified. It consists of a single sentence that provides minimal information, which is concise but not appropriately structured to convey the tool's purpose and behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description needs to explain what a 'request' is, what the response will contain, and any limitations. It explains none of these. The resource is ambiguous, and the description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes both parameters (body and query) with generic descriptions, yielding 100% schema_description_coverage. The description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get latest SERPChecker requests' specifies a clear verb ('Get') and a resource ('SERPChecker requests'), indicating the action of retrieving recent requests. While the term 'requests' is somewhat ambiguous (could be API request logs, usage data, etc.), the product name in the description and tool name distinguishes it from sibling tools like kwfinder_requests, so it is not a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It simply states the action without addressing how it fits among the many sibling tools, such as serpchecker_serps or serpchecker_snapshot.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Get URL metrics for a URL' and omits any information about authentication, rate limits, output format, or operational behavior. It does not describe what the API call does beyond the trivial statement, and no behavioral traits are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose. However, it is slightly under-specified, yet for what it does say, it is concise and well-structured. No unnecessary text is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a bare-bones description, the context is incomplete. The description does not explain what metrics are returned, whether any parameters are required for a meaningful call, or how this tool relates to other url_metrics tools. It is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke it without additional documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents the 'url' parameter with 'URL to analyze', and the generic body/query parameters are self-explanatory. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies. There is no semantic enrichment from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Get URL metrics for a URL.' It is more specific than a tautology, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like linkminer_url_metrics or kwfinder_url_metrics, which likely have similar descriptions. The verb 'Get' and resource 'URL metrics' are clear, yet the scope is generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternative URL metrics tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description gives no context on which service (SerpChecker) is involved or when this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without any information about side effects, required permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or consequences of adding a keyword. For a mutation operation, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and avoids any filler. This is an ideal length for a tool that only needs to state a straightforward action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain that the keyword must be provided in the request body or query, nor does it connect to the existing tracking context. The presence of nested body and query objects with generic descriptions further compounds the need for contextual guidance that is entirely missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (tracking_id, body, query). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify what the body or query should contain for this specific operation. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics adequately, though the description does nothing to enrich them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action clearly: 'Track another keyword in a SERPWatcher tracking.' It identifies the verb (track), the object (keyword), and the context (SERPWatcher tracking), making the purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like serpwatcher_tracked_keywords or serpwatcher_create_tracking, but the focus on adding a keyword is reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as having an existing tracking ID, nor does it indicate that other tools like serpwatcher_tracked_keywords are for listing or deleting tracked keywords. The absence of any contextual or exclusionary information leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description merely restates the tool name without disclosing any behavioral traits such as side effects, required authentication, rate limits, partial failure handling, or expected response format. It adds zero value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is appropriately short and front-loads the essential action, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an arbitrary JSON body, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It fails to explain what constitutes a tracking, what fields are required, how batch creation behaves (e.g., partial failures), or what the response looks like. This is a complex operation with no practical context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for its two parameters (body and query), but these descriptions are generic and not tool-specific. The tool description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies as per the rubric.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create) and resource (multiple SERPWatcher trackings), which is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tool serpwatcher_create_tracking (singular). It effectively communicates the core purpose in a concise manner.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the singular serpwatcher_create_tracking, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or batch-specific use cases. There is no contextual information to help an agent decide between alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and requirements, but it only restates 'Create a new tag' without explaining whether the tag is global or per-tracking, what happens on duplicate names, or any permissions needed. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, making it easy to scan. It loses a point because the condensed format contributes to the lack of useful context, but the conciseness itself is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with no annotations, no output schema, and generic body/query parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return value expectations, required fields for the tag, and relationship to tracking, leaving the agent with significant guesswork.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema_description_coverage is 100%, the only meaningful parameter (tracking_id) is underdescribed, and body/query are generic passthroughs with no specifics about required tag fields. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, failing to explain what data needs to be sent in the body.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Create) and the resource (a new tag for a SERPWatcher tracking), which distinguishes it from listing, updating, or deleting tags. However, it does not explicitly differentiate between creating a tag and assigning a tag to a tracking, which could cause confusion given the sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like serpwatcher_assign_tag or serpwatcher_update_tag. The description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., must a tracking exist?) or suggested use cases, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it provides none. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, what rate limits apply, or what response format to expect. This is a critical omission for effective tool invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero wasted words and front-loads the action. It is appropriately concise for a simple endpoint, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the full responsibility of explaining the tool's behavior and return values. It fails to describe what metrics the overview includes, typical use cases, or how it relates to sibling siteprofiler endpoints, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes all three parameters (url, body, query), so the description is not required to add parameter details. The description itself adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'SiteProfiler URL metrics overview', clearly identifying the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish 'overview' from sibling tools that offer specific metrics like audience or backlink profile, making it somewhat generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as siteprofiler_audience or serpchecker_url_metrics. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the HTTP method (GET), implying a read operation, but does not mention response format, pagination, authentication, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is extremely short and lacks structural richness, though that does not detract from its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is severely incomplete for a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not explain how to use query/body parameters, what the response contains, or how it fits with the many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (url, body, query), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves competitor keywords for a domain or URL via a GET endpoint, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the POST variant and related keyword tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the kwfinder_competitor_keywords_post sibling or other keyword analysis tools. Merely noting 'GET endpoint' is a technical detail, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and requirements. It only states the basic action, omitting details about whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the link ID is invalid, or any authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and easy to scan. However, it is so brief that it under-specifies, lacking any detail on parameters or behavior. This is not the same as efficient conciseness; it borders on being too sparse. Score 3 reflects it's acceptable but not exemplary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a generic body/query parameter, the one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context. It doesn't clarify the purpose of the body/query, when to set favorites, or what response to expect. Thus, the description is incomplete relative to the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters (body, query, link_id) are described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter values or how they relate to the 'favorite' setting, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set a LinkMiner favorite link' identifies a specific action (set) on a specific resource (LinkMiner favorite link), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like linkminer_favorites and linkminer_delete_favorite. However, 'set' is somewhat ambiguous between create and update, but the intent is understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as having an existing link ID, or whether to use it for creating vs updating favorites. This leaves the agent without guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only a read-like action but does not mention pagination, response format, rate limits, or whether any query parameters are required, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, so it earns maximum points for conciseness even though other dimensions suffer from under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify whether query parameters are needed for pagination/filtering, what the response structure is, or how this endpoint relates to the broader SERPWatcher tool family, making it insufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema's two parameters are generic body/query passthroughs with no tool-specific meaning, and the description adds no details about supported query parameters or filtering. Despite 100% schema description coverage, the coverage is boilerplate and does not explain how to shape a request to this endpoint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SERPWatcher trackings'), and 'all' clearly indicates a list operation. It distinguishes from sibling detail/create/update/delete tracking tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 serpwatcher_tracking_detail or serpwatcher_tracking_stats. The phrase 'all trackings' implies a list scenario, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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. The description only says 'Unassign a tag' without explaining whether the tag is deleted or just disassociated, what happens to the tracking data, or where the tag identifier is specified in the request. This ambiguity is risky for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the operation. No redundant filler or unnecessary details are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to define the request payload structure for specifying the tag, any side effects, or confirmation of success. The presence of generic body/query parameters further obscures usage, making the tool risky to invoke without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema coverage is 100%, the property descriptions are generic (e.g., 'body' and 'query' are pass-through objects). The description does not clarify how the tag to be unassigned is provided—likely via body or query parameters—leaving a critical semantic gap. The tracking_id is documented, but the tag identification mechanism is unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unassign a tag from a SERPWatcher tracking' clearly states the action (unassign) and the resource (SERPWatcher tracking). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool serpwatcher_delete_tracking_tag, which may perform a similar or overlapping operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like serpwatcher_assign_tag or serpwatcher_delete_tracking_tag. There is no mention of intended use cases, prerequisites, or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 states that a monitor is created, without mentioning required inputs, return values, side effects, or permissions. This is minimal but not entirely missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single six-word sentence with no padding or redundancy. Every word is functional, making it maximally concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with no output schema and no annotations, this description is inadequate. It omits any information about the expected body structure, what a monitor is, or how the response will be returned, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its two parameters, but both are generic passthrough fields (body, query). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as 'AI monitoring for a brand'. This clearly states the action and the object, but it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like aiwatcher_monitors or aiwatcher_generate_prompts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Sibling tools such as aiwatcher_delete_monitor and aiwatcher_update_monitor_settings exist, but no exclusions, preconditions, or contextual cues are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', which is already implied by the tool name, and does not mention return format, authentication, side effects, or any other behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler words, making it easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context, though conciseness itself is not penalized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this minimal description leaves the agent without critical context such as what the settings represent, how they relate to other monitor tools, or what the response contains. The presence of overlapping sibling tools heightens the need for more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (id, body, query) with clear descriptions, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no extra parameter information, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'AI Search Watcher monitor settings', making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'aiwatcher_monitor_detail', which likely also retrieves monitor-related information, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aiwatcher_monitor_detail' or 'aiwatcher_update_monitor_settings'. The description simply states what it does without any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not mention what the response contains, whether authentication is needed, or any edge cases. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool, though it lacks additional structured detail that could make it more useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides very little context about the expected response or usage flow. It does not mention the optional 'body' and 'query' parameters' purpose, nor any prerequisites like having a valid prompt ID. For a read tool, this is incomplete but not severely misleading.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with 'id' described as 'AI Search Watcher prompt ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get AI Search Watcher prompt detail' clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (prompt detail), which is distinct from sibling tools like monitor detail or prompt deletion. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself by mentioning alternatives or the scope of 'detail', so it falls slightly short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'aiwatcher_monitor_prompts' or 'aiwatcher_generate_prompts'. The description only states what it does, not why or when to choose it, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but only says 'Update'. It does not disclose idempotency, error behavior, whether a monitor must already exist, or what side effects occur. Lacks essential behavioral context for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, though it is arguably too short to be fully helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an update operation with no output schema and minimal description, the agent lacks information about what settings can be updated and what the response looks like. The description is under-specified for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% – the schema describes id, body, and query with clear explanations. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update AI Search Watcher monitor settings' – a clear verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling read-only tool 'aiwatcher_monitor_settings', so it misses full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus creating or deleting monitors, or updating other entities. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosure. It only states the HTTP method (POST), which implies a mutation, but provides no details on authentication, rate limits, side effects, or response format. This is minimal and insufficient for a send operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, earning conciseness. However, 'using the POST endpoint' is redundant given the tool's name suggests it, and the brevity sacrifices substantive information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a body parameter with unrestricted additionalProperties. The description does not explain how to construct the request, what fields the body accepts, or what the response returns. For a POST endpoint, this is inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions fully cover all three parameters (url, body, query), with url described as 'Domain or URL to analyze.' The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets competitor keywords for a domain or URL, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It hints at differentiation from the sibling 'kwfinder_competitor_keywords' by mentioning the POST endpoint, though it doesn't elaborate on the method's advantages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 POST variant over the GET version (kwfinder_competitor_keywords) or other keyword tools. It lacks any mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether associated keywords are also deleted, or any rate limits/auth requirements. It only states the action without elaboration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, six words, communicates the core function without waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain what happens after deletion, error scenarios, or the role of the optional body/query parameters. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters (list_id, body, query), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but it doesn't need to since the schema already documents them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a KWFinder custom list' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (custom list). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like kwfinder_delete_list_keywords, though the name suggests a different scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or when alternatives like kwfinder_delete_list_keywords might be more appropriate. There is no implied usage context beyond the verb 'delete'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get metrics,' which suggests a read operation, but the tool name includes 'imports' and the schema has generic body/query pass-throughs, implying potential side effects such as quota consumption or list creation. No such behavior is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It earns its place by stating the tool's core purpose in eight words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain return values, request format, or side effects. It is too sparse to fully inform an agent on how to invoke the tool correctly, especially with generic body/query parameters and no stated required fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds marginal meaning by using 'imported keywords,' which loosely maps to the keywords array, but it does not clarify how language_id/location_id affect results or how body/query override parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('metrics'), and scopes it to 'a set of imported keywords.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kwfinder_keyword_details or kwfinder_related_keywords, though 'imported' is slightly ambiguous and could mean keywords provided in the request vs. previously imported into a list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It merely restates the core function, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not disclose what 'limits' means, whether authentication is needed, what the response contains, or any rate-limit behavior. Minimal behavioral context is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but there is no output schema, no annotations, and no elaboration on what 'limits' means or what the response will look like. The description leaves important context unexplained, making it incomplete for an agent trying to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for its two parameters, but both are generic passthrough fields ('body' and 'query') with no tool-specific meaning. The description does not add parameter details; however, no parameters are required, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a distinct resource ('current and free KWFinder limits'). It clearly communicates what the tool does and stands apart from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 description only states the action with no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 states the operation without mentioning pagination, result format, rate limits, or any side effects, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the core purpose in a concise and clear manner, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a collection endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It fails to mention pagination, return fields, or any query parameters, leaving the agent without enough context to effectively use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% because both parameters have generic descriptions. However, these descriptions are endpoint-agnostic ('Optional JSON request body', 'Optional query string parameters') and the tool description adds no specific information about supported query parameters, so the agent cannot infer valid arguments. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage but no added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get all') and resource ('KWFinder keyword lists'), clearly indicating a collection operation. The word 'all' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like kwfinder_list_items or kwfinder_create_list, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. There is no mention of how this differs from related tools like kwfinder_list_items or kwfinder_create_list, so an agent gets no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it updates a list name, but provides no information about side effects, required permissions, idempotency, error handling, or whether the operation is partial or replaces the entire list.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool involves 4 parameters (including a nested body object), has mutation semantics, and no output schema. The one-sentence description is insufficient to understand the full context, such as what the response returns, how to structure the body, or what errors might occur.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (list_id, name, body, query), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond repeating the 'name' parameter's purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('KWFinder list') with the specific field ('name'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/delete list. It is specific and unambiguous, though it lacks additional nuance about the scope of the update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kwfinder_create_list or kwfinder_add_list_keywords. It simply states the action without explaining prerequisites, when it should be chosen, or when a different tool would be appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it creates a task, without covering side effects, authenticity requirements, asynchronous execution, or response handling. This is a significant gap for a mutable operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero wasted words, making it very concise. It is efficient but arguably too terse, lacking detail that would help an agent understand invocation, though for what it contains, it is well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no required parameters, and a generic passthrough schema. The one-sentence description is insufficient to understand the expected request body or response format, especially given the complexity of the export task ecosystem indicated by sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention parameters, but the input schema provides descriptions for both generic passthrough fields (body and query), giving 100% schema coverage. Per baseline, this is sufficient; however, the schema descriptions are generic and tool-agnostic, so the description adds no extra meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Create') and resource ('LinkMiner export task'), making the purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools like linkminer_exports or linkminer_export_suggestions. However, it is terse and does not elaborate on what an export task involves, though it is still unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where a different tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent without directional context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' and does not explain whether this is a safe read, consumes API quota, or what the response structure is. This minimal disclosure is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what kind of suggestions are returned, how they are structured, or any limitations. In the context of many sibling tools, additional context would be valuable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; the 'body' and 'query' parameters are generic pass-through objects. The 'url' parameter is briefly described but no extra meaning is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'LinkMiner export suggestions' with a URL input, making it specific and scoped. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like linkminer_exports and linkminer_create_export by focusing on 'suggestions,' but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as linkminer_exports or linkminer_create_export. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It only states 'Get backlinks,' implying a read operation, but omits details about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or the exact return format. This is insufficient for an agent to predict side effects or data volume.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is easily parsed, though the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and no required parameters, the description alone is insufficient. It does not clarify what the 'backlinks' response contains, whether a URL is needed, or how the optional body/query affect the request. The agent must rely on parameter names and sibling tools to infer behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, describing url as 'Target URL or domain,' and body/query as optional pass-through parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('backlinks') from 'LinkMiner.' This distinguishes it from tools like kwfinder or serpchecker, though not from sibling tools like linkminer_exports or linkminer_url_metrics. The scope (e.g., for a URL) is implied by the input schema but not explicitly stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or when to choose linkminer_links over related tools like linkminer_url_metrics or linkminer_exports.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'Get' suggesting a read operation, but does not disclose what metrics are returned, whether it consumes API credits, rate limits, or any potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is clear and front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for a simple tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, how to use body/query, or any endpoint-specific behavior, making it insufficient for fully informed use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description only repeats the 'target URL' concept already in the schema. The body and query parameters are generic pass-throughs and the description adds no insight into how they should be used for this specific endpoint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get URL metrics for a target URL' clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like serpchecker_url_metrics or kwfinder_url_metrics, which could also return URL metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Get SERP results' without revealing side effects, rate limits, required permissions, or what the response contains. While it implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose any limitations or output structure, leaving the agent underinformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get SERP results with all metrics and snapshot.' It is concise, contains no filler words, and every word contributes meaning. It's an example of efficient prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three parameters (including nested object types), no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools. The description fails to explain what 'snapshot' means, how the endpoints should be invoked, or what the response includes. This minimal description is inadequate for an agent to correctly construct a request, especially without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%—each parameter has a description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The mention of 'all metrics and snapshot' vaguely hints at the output, but it doesn't clarify how parameters like 'body' or 'query' affect behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving SERP results with all metrics and snapshot. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SERP results'), and adds scope details ('with all metrics and snapshot') that distinguish it from simpler sibling tools like serpchecker_snapshot. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or mention the keyword dependency, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The phrase 'with all metrics and snapshot' implies comprehensive output but doesn't offer explicit usage context. This is a clear gap for an API with many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'freshly reparsed' and 'all metrics and snapshot' but does not disclose potential costs, side effects of the reset action, or response format details. Minimal behavioral context is added beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This reset operation within a broader SERPChecker family lacks sufficient context. It does not explain reset semantics, request consumption, or differentiation from related tools, and there is no output schema to clarify the return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes all three parameters (body, query, keyword) with generic descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the high schema coverage means it does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a get operation on SERP results, with 'freshly reparsed' matching the 'reset' in the tool name and 'all metrics and snapshot' denoting the scope. It implies a distinction from cached results but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context or alternatives are provided. 'Freshly reparsed' implies a use case for fresh data, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over serpchecker_serps or serpchecker_snapshot.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 does not indicate whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the tag or tracking does not exist, whether existing tag assignments are replaced, or any authentication or side-effect details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words, which earns high marks for efficiency. However, it is so sparse that it omits critical operational details, making it more under-specified than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the full operation, but it fails to mention how the tag is specified (likely in the body), whether the tag must pre-exist, or what the response looks like. Given this is a mutation tool with a generic body parameter and rich sibling context, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The 'body' parameter is described generically as a raw JSON pass-through, but the description adds no additional meaning or context about what fields the body should contain (e.g., tag_id). The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of specificity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Assign' and the resource 'a tag to a SERPWatcher tracking,' making the primary purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like serpwatcher_create_tracking_tag or serpwatcher_unassign_tag, but the verb choice ('assign' vs 'create'/'unassign') provides some distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools such as serpwatcher_create_tracking_tag, serpwatcher_tracking_tags, and serpwatcher_unassign_tag, a clear statement about prerequisites (e.g., 'tag must already exist') or conditions for use is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral implications. It merely states 'Create a SERPWatcher tracking' without disclosing side effects, required setup, validation rules, or what constitutes a successful creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero filler and is front-loaded with the action verb. However, it is extremely brief and provides no structural elaboration, though this is more of a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description bears the burden of explaining behavior and required inputs. The bare statement fails to explain what fields are needed in the body, what the response will be, or any constraints, making it incomplete for real-world use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage for the two parameters is 100%, with generic descriptions for 'body' and 'query', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about what content the body should contain to create a tracking, and additionalProperties true leaves semantics unspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'SERPWatcher tracking', clearly identifying the action and object. It distinguishes from update/delete siblings but not from the similarly named serpwatcher_create_multiple_trackings, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context, alternative tool comparisons, or prerequisites are mentioned. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus serpwatcher_create_multiple_trackings or serpwatcher_update_tracking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Delete' and provides no information on permanence, side effects, permissions, or idempotency, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded but is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, though not to the degree of a tautology.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only the most basic action statement, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not explain what happens on deletion, return values, or any caveats.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema adequately documents all parameters. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('SERPWatcher annotation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/update annotation and delete tracking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as serpwatcher_delete_tracking or serpwatcher_delete_report. The description only states the operation without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the operation is 'Delete', implying destructiveness, but does not mention reversibility, cascading effects on assignments, or whether the tag must exist. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without annotation context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, earning its place. However, it is somewhat bare, omitting details that could be included without hurting conciseness, which prevents a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should offer more context about behavior and usage. The tool is simple (one required parameter), but the ambiguity with sibling tools and lack of behavioral disclosure make the description incomplete for an agent to invoke it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for `tracking_id`, `body`, and `query` already present. The tool description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a tag from a SERPWatcher tracking'), identifying the tool's core purpose. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like `serpwatcher_unassign_tag` or `serpwatcher_delete_tracking`, leaving potential ambiguity about whether this removes a tag record or an association.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as `serpwatcher_unassign_tag` or `serpwatcher_update_tag`. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 simply states a 'Get' operation without mentioning read-only behavior, response format, pagination, or any side effects. This is a minimal transparency gap for a read tool, but lacks enriching context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant information. It immediately conveys the core purpose, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool ecosystem (many SERPWatcher siblings, no output schema, no annotations), this terse description is insufficient. It lacks context about return values, parameter usage, or relationship to other tracking endpoints, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with tracking_id described as 'SERPWatcher tracking ID.' and generic pass-through descriptions for body and query. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'SERPWatcher tracking detail and keywords,' making the tool's action explicit. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like serpwatcher_tracking_detail_legacy or serpwatcher_tracking_stats, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools including a legacy variant and separate keyword-focused endpoints, the absence of usage context leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose behaviors like whether it returns only tag metadata, any pagination/limitations, or authentication requirements. For a fetch operation, the description adds little beyond the verb itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise and to the point, though slightly sparse. It earns its place without redundancy, but could incorporate a bit more useful detail without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and a minimally described tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what values a 'tag' contains (ID, name, color), whether the response is an array, or how tags relate to a tracking. Sibling tag tools add confusion about scope, and the description does not resolve this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (tracking_id is described as 'SERPWatcher tracking ID'), and the description adds no extra parameter meaning. Body and query are generic passthrough fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the main parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all tags for a SERPWatcher tracking'), clearly indicating it retrieves tags associated with a particular tracking. It distinguishes from sibling tools like serpwatcher_tags (account-wide) by the 'for a SERPWatcher tracking' scope, though it doesn't explicitly call out the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as serpwatcher_tags, serpwatcher_assign_tag, or serpwatcher_unassign_tag. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update a SERPWatcher report' without revealing what changes are made, whether the operation is idempotent, required permissions, or side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is easily readable and front-loaded with the action. However, it is so brief that it might be considered under-specified, but for conciseness itself, it earns a high score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a report update entails, what fields are affected, or what the response will look like. Sibling tools like create_report exist but are not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, though body and query descriptions are generic boilerplate. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and the resource (SERPWatcher report), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_report and delete_report. However, it lacks detail on what exactly can be updated (e.g., name, settings, fields), so it does not fully achieve the 'specific verb+resource+scope' level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to similar tools like serpwatcher_create_report or serpwatcher_update_tracking. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or the structure of the returned backlink profile. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. It earns its place without waste, but it's so brief that it omits important context, preventing a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns and under what conditions. It only says 'Get SiteProfiler backlink profile' without mentioning the required URL (not listed as required in the schema), the response format, or what kind of profile data is included. This is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (url, body, query), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but it doesn't need to since the schema already explains them clearly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get SiteProfiler backlink profile' uses a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('SiteProfiler backlink profile'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like siteprofiler_overview or siteprofiler_competitors. However, it doesn't elaborate on what the backlink profile includes or how it differs from the overview, so it's not as explicit as it could be.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other siteprofiler tools. It doesn't mention whether a URL is required, what kind of URLs are supported, or any preconditions. The description simply states the action without contextual cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It only discloses the 30-day window and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, or any pagination/rate limits. This is minimal for a tool with zero annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, compact, and directly states the core function. No filler or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description leaves important gaps: it does not explain what a 'used request' includes, nor does it provide any usage context. The tool lacks sufficient detail for an agent to know what to expect from the call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, but the descriptions are generic pass-through notes (body/query). The tool description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Get latest SiteProfiler used requests from the last 30 days' with a clear verb (Get), resource (SiteProfiler used requests), and time scope (last 30 days). The product name in the tool name and description distinguishes it from other *_requests siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention prerequisites, authentication, or exclusions, and provides no context for choosing this over the many other request-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get latest LinkMiner used requests' without disclosing whether this is a read-only operation, what the response contains, pagination/limit behavior, or any authentication requirements. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with optional parameters and no output schema; more detail would be valuable without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should clarify what 'used requests' means and what the caller will get back. It neither explains the return format nor the scope (e.g., recent vs. all requests), leaving significant gaps for a simple but underdefined tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters having generic descriptions ('Optional JSON request body' and 'Optional query string parameters'). The description adds no tool-specific parameter meaning beyond that, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents parameter existence and basic purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('latest LinkMiner used requests'), specifying the product (LinkMiner) and operation type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kwfinder_requests and serpchecker_requests by product name, though 'used requests' is somewhat ambiguous (e.g., request history vs. quota usage).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is only implied: it is for retrieving recent request usage for LinkMiner, as opposed to similar tools for other Mangools products. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' and provides no information about HTTP method, partial versus full update, side effects, permissions, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an update tool with generic pass-through body/query parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to construct the request body to update domain or location, nor what response to expect, leaving the agent to guess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a vague hint that the body should contain domain or location, but it does not specify exact key names or request structure, so the added value is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Update' and clearly identifies the resource ('SERPWatcher tracking domain or location'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like serpwatcher_create_tracking and serpwatcher_delete_tracking by making the update action explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that creating a tracking uses a different tool, nor any prerequisites such as the tracking needing to exist before updating.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 states a mutation action without addressing side effects, permissions, required fields, or request behavior, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. However, it is so minimal that it provides little value beyond the tool name, which prevents a top score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what constitutes a valid list, whether 'name' is practically required, or what the response looks like. Sibling tools exist for related operations, but no context is given.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all three parameters (body, name, query) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create) and resource (KWFinder list), making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like kwfinder_update_list or kwfinder_delete_list beyond the verb, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The verb 'create' implies usage when a new list is needed, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. It provides only a minimal implied context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the removal action but does not disclose permanence, required identifiers beyond list_id, error behavior, or any side effects. The single sentence conveys only the basic action with no additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded, no filler. The description is appropriately concise given the simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of nested body/query parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the request structure and how to target a specific link. It does not, leaving critical ambiguity. The tool may be simple, but the description is under-specified for an agent to invoke it correctly without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain how the link being removed is specified. While list_id is clearly described in the schema, the only other parameters are generic body/query objects. The description's mention of 'a LinkMiner link' implies an additional identifier, but the schema and description fail to clarify whether it belongs in the body or query. Schema coverage is high, but the description adds no meaningful parameter guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear and specific: 'Remove a LinkMiner link from a favorite list.' Identifies the action (remove), the resource (LinkMiner link), and the context (favorite list). Distinguished from sibling tools like linkminer_set_favorite_link (which adds) and linkminer_favorites (which lists).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Does not mention that this is for removing an individual link from a list, as opposed to deleting the entire list or managing favorites in other ways. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via 'Get list', but does not mention pagination, response format, or any filtering options. The lack of behavioral detail is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the action. It is concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't clarify pagination behavior, filtering capabilities, or the relationship to 'mangools_location_detail'. Given the sibling tools, the agent may be uncertain when to use this versus the detail endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only generic descriptions for 'body' and 'query' that are not specific to this endpoint. The tool description adds no information about what query parameters can be used to filter locations, so it adds little meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get list') and resource ('Mangools geo-targeting locations'), clearly distinguishing itself from sibling 'mangools_location_detail' by emphasizing 'all'. It is concise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the sibling 'mangools_location_detail' or any criteria for choosing between them, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' without indicating whether this is a safe read, whether it generates or retrieves a stored image, or any auth/rate-limit implications. This is minimal and insufficient for a full understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (six words) and front-loaded, avoiding any wasted words. While it could include more context without bloat, its efficient structure earns a high score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain the return format and surrounding context. It merely says 'image URL' without describing snapshot semantics, how URLs are generated, or any prerequisites. This leaves notable gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover all parameters (100%), including 'serp_id' as 'SERP snapshot ID' and generic passthrough fields. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action: retrieving the image URL for a SERP snapshot. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'SERP snapshot image URL' precisely define the tool's output and distinguish it from siblings that list SERPs or provide metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs. alternatives. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing snapshot ID) and does not mention any exclusions or related tools. The usage context is entirely unaddressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Add prompts') without revealing whether existing prompts are replaced, whether the operation is idempotent, what authentication is required, or what side effects occur. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with generic body/query pass-through parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several similarly named siblings, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to compose the request, what 'add' implies semantically, or what the expected outcome is, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no detail about how the prompts should be represented in the generic 'body' or 'query' parameters; it merely introduces the concept of 'prompts' without mapping it to the schema. The schema still carries the parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add prompts to an AI Search Watcher monitor.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from related siblings such as aiwatcher_generate_prompts, aiwatcher_delete_prompts, and aiwatcher_monitor_prompts by focusing on the 'add' action targeting a monitor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aiwatcher_generate_prompts (to create prompts) or aiwatcher_monitor_prompts (to list them), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Generate' without revealing whether this mutates state, what inputs are required, what the response contains, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and only generic body/query parameters, yet the description does not explain what the generated prompts look like, how they are returned, or any required inputs. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both body and query parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema, but it also does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Generate'), a clear resource ('AI prompts'), and a context ('brand monitoring'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling prompt-related tools like aiwatcher_prompt_detail and aiwatcher_delete_prompts, which involve different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aiwatcher_add_monitor_prompts or aiwatcher_prompt_detail. The only implied usage is the purpose itself; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get', which implies read-only, but it does not disclose what the response contains, whether pagination applies, or any limitations. Minimal explicit behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word adds value in conveying the core operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what a 'model' is, what data is returned, or how this tool fits into the broader aiwatcher workflow. For a simple metadata tool, it is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing generic descriptions for 'body' and 'query' parameters. However, these are boilerplate pass-through descriptions not specific to this endpoint, and the 'body' description references POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE methods even though this is a GET operation, reducing semantic clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available AI Search Watcher models'). No other sibling tool targets 'models', so it distinguishes itself effectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other aiwatcher tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage directions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, or whether it requires specific permissions, or how results are returned (e.g., pagination, array vs object). The behavioral traits are largely implicit rather than disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the existence of many related sibling tools, this description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'prompt details' means in practice (e.g., whether it returns prompt text, metadata, or both), nor does it provide context on how this tool fits into the broader workflow of managing AI Search Watcher prompts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with all parameters having descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The generic 'body' and 'query' parameters are already self-explanatory, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('AI Search Watcher prompt details for a monitor'). It distinguishes from siblings like aiwatcher_prompt_detail (likely single prompt details) and aiwatcher_add_monitor_prompts (adding prompts), indicating a retrieval operation scoped to a monitor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or context. For example, it does not clarify whether this lists all prompts for a monitor or requires a specific prompt ID. Sibling tools like aiwatcher_prompt_detail could overlap, but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action but omits important details: does it append to or replace existing keywords? What happens if the list does not exist? Are there rate limits or authentication requirements? This lack of side-effect disclosure is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence. It communicates the core function without any filler, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a relatively simple mutation purpose. However, the description fails to provide essential context such as whether the operation is idempotent, whether it expects keywords in a specific format, or how errors are surfaced. For a tool with no safety annotations, this is under-specified and leaves the agent guessing about edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75% because the 'keywords' parameter lacks a description. The tool description implicitly explains that 'keywords' holds the keywords to add, but it does not clarify the relationship between the 'keywords' array and the generic 'body' or 'query' parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add keywords to a KWFinder list' uses a specific verb ('add') and clearly identifies the resource (keywords to a KWFinder list). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like kwfinder_delete_list_keywords and kwfinder_create_list, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kwfinder_keyword_imports or kwfinder_update_list. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., list must exist), behavior when keywords are duplicate, or situations where a different tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only states that SERP data is included, but does not disclose required parameters, endpoint specifics, pagination, response format, or safety implications. 'Get' implies a read operation, but that is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a generic body/query parameter structure, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify whether keyword is required, what SERP data actually contains, or how this tool relates to the many similar kwfinder siblings. A more complete description is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (body, query, keyword), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is adequate for 'keyword' as a seed or exact keyword.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get keyword details, including SERP data,' which identifies the resource and a key output. It is distinct from siblings like kwfinder_related_keywords or kwfinder_url_metrics, though 'details' is somewhat generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it is used when keyword details or SERP data are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There are no exclusions or named alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what data is returned, or any error/rate-limit behavior. This is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded for a simple detail-retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool has only one required parameter and is simple, the absence of an output schema and annotations places the burden on the description to explain what 'detail' includes. The description does not describe the return format or any contextual prerequisites, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with 'location' described as 'Mangools location ID' and generic descriptions for 'body' and 'query'. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get detail for one Mangools location' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Mangools location'), and the qualifier 'one' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool mangools_locations, which presumably lists locations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that mangools_locations should be used for listing locations or that this tool is for retrieving a single location's details. The usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response expectations beyond the basic 'create' verb, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the purpose with no redundant or irrelevant text. It is well-structured for its minimal content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks essential context for correct invocation, such as what constitutes a SERPWatcher report, the dependency on tracking_id, or expected behavior/return output. With no output schema and minimal annotations, this falls short of being complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (body, query, tracking_id) already described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'new SERPWatcher report', distinguishing it from sibling tools like serpwatcher_update_report or serpwatcher_delete_report. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, any prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing tracking ID), or how it differs from alternatives. It only states the action without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the delete is permanent, irreversible, or what consequences it has on related data. It only restates the action implied by the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, zero filler, front-loaded with the verb. It is as concise as possible while remaining clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (required IDs, generic body/query params, no output schema, no annotations), this sparse description is insufficient. It does not explain the relationship between tracking_id and report_id, nor convey any operational context needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('SERPWatcher report'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like serpwatcher_delete_tracking and serpwatcher_delete_tracked_keyword. It unambiguously identifies the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites, side effects, or conditions. It simply states the action, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. Although 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, whether cascading effects occur, or any required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for the simple operation it describes, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple but lacks any contextual information beyond the bare action. No output schema, no annotations, and no guidance on behavioral expectations or usage scenarios. This makes it insufficiently complete for an agent to make fully informed decisions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with clear descriptions for all parameters (tracking_id, body, query). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already handles this, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('SERPWatcher tracking'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling delete tools like serpwatcher_delete_tracked_keyword or serpwatcher_delete_report. The scope is unambiguous and matches the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., existing tracking), or consequences. It simply states the action without any contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' and does not mention return format, pagination, authentication needs, or how body/query passthrough parameters behave. This is minimal even for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that immediately conveys the core function. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the 8-word description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain what 'detail' entails, how to use the optional body/query parameters, or how this tool differs from the plural list variant. The lack of context is notable for a tool with passthrough parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('one tracked keyword in a SERPWatcher tracking'). The singular 'one' distinguishes it from the plural sibling serpwatcher_tracked_keywords, giving it a specific scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like serpwatcher_tracked_keywords or serpwatcher_tracking_detail. It lacks any mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states only that the tool retrieves all tracked keywords, which implies a read operation, but does not disclose response format, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. Lacks richer behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains zero filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to convey behavioral and response context. It does not mention return value structure, pagination, or how to use the optional query/body parameters. For a list endpoint, more detail would be helpful, especially given the absence of structured output documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema carries the parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('tracked keywords') and scoping prepositional phrase ('for a tracking'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like serpwatcher_tracked_keyword_detail (single keyword) and serpwatcher_add_tracked_keyword (create operation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While the name and description imply it lists all tracked keywords for a tracking, there is no explicit statement about scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tools. The context is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the implicit 'get' semantics. There is no explicit statement that this is read-only, no mention of pagination, rate limits, or user scope limitations. The phrase 'for the user' hints at scoping but offers minimal safety or side-effect transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without any fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any information about return format, pagination, or relationship to sibling AI Watcher tools (e.g., this likely returns an array of monitor summaries). Without an output schema, the agent has no way to know the response structure. It is complete enough for basic understanding but leaves gaps for invocation planning.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both body and query parameters described generically as pass-through to the endpoint. The tool description adds no specific parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not clarify what query parameters might be available (e.g., filters) or when body would be used for a GET operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('all AI Search Watcher monitors'). The word 'all' distinguishes it from sibling tools like aiwatcher_monitor_detail, which likely retrieves a single monitor. This is a specific verb+resource pairing with no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to aiwatcher_monitor_detail or aiwatcher_create_monitor. Effective usage context is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, what cascading effects might occur (e.g., removing prompts/settings), or any authorization requirements. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb. It earns its place but is slightly vague with 'AI monitoring' instead of 'monitor' or 'AI Search Watcher monitor.'
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool, the description provides the core purpose and the schema covers parameters. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility, effects on related data) and does not mention any return value or error conditions, which would be valuable for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it does not clarify the 'id' format or any relationships between the 'body' and 'query' parameters beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete AI monitoring for a brand' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (AI monitoring monitor). It distinguishes from sibling tools like aiwatcher_create_monitor and aiwatcher_update_monitor_settings by explicitly naming the deletion operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: this is the tool to call when a monitor should be removed. However, no explicit guidance is given about when not to use it or alternatives (though no direct alternative exists). It lacks context on prerequisites like whether the monitor must exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a mutating/destructive operation ('Remove') but does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, whether multiple keywords can be removed at once, what happens to the list, or any required permissions. This is a significant gap for a delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that immediately states the action and target. No wasted words; it is appropriately front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a moderate complexity with optional generic parameters and no output schema, but the description provides almost no context about expected behavior, return values, or side effects. Given that keywords is not required in the schema, the description should clarify whether omitting it removes all keywords or is an error, but it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 75%, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies that 'keywords' are the items to be removed, but the generic 'body' and 'query' pass-through parameters remain unexplained. The description does not fully compensate for the undocumented 'keywords' array.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('keywords from a KWFinder list'), making the operation clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like kwfinder_delete_list (delete whole list) and kwfinder_add_list_keywords (add keywords).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: removing keywords from an existing KWFinder list. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., use kwfinder_delete_list for deleting the entire list) or name alternatives, leaving the guidance to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'See' which implies a non-destructive read, but it does not disclose response format, error behavior, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The description adds no value beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core purpose effectively and wastes zero characters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the response looks like or what actions are involved. It only states 'See one LinkMiner favorite link,' which is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior or how to handle the response. The nested 'body'/'query' properties add complexity that is not addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with 'link_id' described as 'LinkMiner link ID' and generic 'body'/'query' parameters. The description mentions no parameters and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'See one LinkMiner favorite link' uses a specific verb ('see') and resource ('LinkMiner favorite link'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'linkminer_favorites' (list) and 'linkminer_delete_favorite' (delete). The word 'one' indicates single-item detail retrieval, which is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a single favorite link but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'linkminer_favorites' or 'linkminer_delete_favorite'. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites, so usage context is only inferred from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, how the keyword is identified (e.g., via a keyword ID in the body or query), what happens if the keyword is not found, or any side effects. The schema only requires tracking_id, making the invocation unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler: 'Remove a keyword from a SERPWatcher tracking.' It is concise, front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too terse. It leaves critical invocation details ambiguous, such as how the specific keyword is identified, what parameters beyond tracking_id are needed, and what response to expect. The tool may be confused with serpwatcher_delete_tracking without more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify how the body/query parameters should be used to specify the keyword being removed, nor does it explain the distinction between tracking_id and the keyword identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a keyword from a SERPWatcher tracking' clearly states the verb (remove), the resource (keyword), and the context (SERPWatcher tracking). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like serpwatcher_delete_tracking, which removes an entire tracking, and serpwatcher_add_tracked_keyword, which adds a keyword.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and description: use this when you need to remove a keyword from a tracking. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, such as serpwatcher_delete_tracking for deleting the entire tracking, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get' and 'legacy endpoint', which implies a read-only operation but discloses no behavioral traits such as differences from the current endpoint, response format, rating limits, or authentication needs. The legacy aspect is mentioned but not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It clearly conveys the purpose and the legacy qualifier without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete in the context of the sibling ecosystem. It fails to clarify what 'legacy' means behaviorally, when to use this over serpwatcher_tracking_detail, or any limitations of the legacy endpoint. No output schema is provided, so the description should fill more gaps, but it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already documents tracking_id, body, and query adequately. No compensation needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('SERPWatcher tracking detail'). The phrase 'using the legacy endpoint' explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling serpwatcher_tracking_detail (non-legacy), satisfying the sibling differentiation criterion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an implied usage context: use this tool for the legacy endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the non-legacy alternative or any exclusions. No alternative tools are named, so guidance is minimal but not absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states sorting by creation date; it omits response format, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects, leaving major behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single 8-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list GET, the description is adequate but lacks details on return structure, pagination, or available query parameters, which the agent would need to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the generic body/query parameters, but the description adds no tool-specific parameter meaning. The hint about default sorting is mildly useful, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'all LinkMiner exports' with a sort order, distinguishing it from sibling creation and suggestion tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the purpose obvious (retrieving exports), which implicitly differentiates it from create/delete tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only list operation ('Get all') but does not disclose pagination, response structure, or any quirks. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and to the point, earning its place without redundant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is serviceable but not rich. It does not explain what constitutes a report, nor does it mention optional body/query parameters' effect. There is room for more context, but it is not critically incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with tracking_id described as 'SERPWatcher tracking ID' and generic body/query parameters. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond mentioning 'for a tracking,' so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('SERPWatcher reports') and scope ('for a tracking'). It differentiates from sibling report tools like create/delete/update by indicating a read-all operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the verb 'Get all' and resource, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like serpwatcher_create_report. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mangools-mcp-codex MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/marwa-mrwan/mangools-mcp-codex/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/marwa-mrwan/mangools-mcp-codex)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mangools-mcp-codex MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/marwa-mrwan/mangools-mcp-codex/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/marwa-mrwan/mangools-mcp-codex)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/marwa-mrwan/mangools-mcp-codex'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server