listAuditSectionsLists available SEO audit sections with their keys, chapters, and covered questions, helping you understand what each audit covers.
Catalogue des sections d'audit — Clés des sections disponibles (maillage_interne, scores_pages, indexation_google, sf_crawl_indexation…), chapitre et questions couvertes. — (GET /audit/sections)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the GET endpoint and the response contents, which is useful context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already establish.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the main purpose. The opening phrase repeats the title exactly, and the em-dash structure is slightly fragmented, but every substantive detail—keys, chapters, questions, endpoint—is included without padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list endpoint, the description is nearly complete. It states the endpoint and indicates what the response will contain. A more explicit response shape would help, but given the low complexity and rich annotations, nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema declares zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to document, and the description correctly implies a simple no-argument call by specifying the GET endpoint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource as a catalogue of audit sections and states that it returns the available section keys, chapter, and covered questions. It is specific enough to distinguish from audit reports or audit actions, though it does not explicitly contrast with its closest sibling getAuditSection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that getAuditSection should be used for a single section's details, nor does it state any exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'catalogue'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.