gpsem

Suggestions de maillage interne

listLinkSuggestions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify missing internal links per page with actionable suggestions from GPSEM's global audit.

Instructions

Suggestions de maillage interne — Liens à ajouter proposés par GPSEM, page par page. Analyse globale : section d'audit maillage_interne. — (GET /sites/{siteId}/maillage/suggestions)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "siteId": "<siteId>"
    },
    "name": "listLinkSuggestions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page (défaut 1)
`limit`	No	Nombre de résultats (≤ 500, défaut 100)
`siteId`	Yes	ID site encodé (hashid)
`page_id`	No	Une seule page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds that results are page-by-page and that the tool belongs to the internal linking audit section, providing useful context but not extensive behavioral detail like rate limits or response format.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Suggestions de maillage interne — Liens à ajouter proposés par GPSEM, page par page') and then adds context. It is concise with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a list-focused tool with a clear schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient domain context to call the tool correctly. The lack of output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return structure, and pagination details are covered by the schema.

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 four parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. It adds no additional parameter-specific info, warranting the baseline score.

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 tool provides internal linking suggestions proposed by GPSEM, per page, and identifies it as part of the internal linking audit section. This makes its purpose distinct from sibling audit or page tools.

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 internal linking suggestions and mentions the audit section context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage is inferable from the domain but not directly guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server