Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gpsem

gpsem

by puples
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Catalogue des rapports NavRank / ClickRank

listNavrankReports
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists available NavRank and ClickRank reports, including Navboost reports, for SEO analysis and tracking.

Instructions

Catalogue des rapports NavRank / ClickRank — Rapports Navboost disponibles. — (GET /navrank/rapports)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "listNavrankReports"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint; the description adds the GET verb and the 'available reports' scope, which is consistent and mildly useful. It does not disclose return shape or pagination, but for a zero-parameter catalogue that is a minor 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 short, but its first clause duplicates the title almost verbatim. The endpoint fragment earns its place, while 'Rapports Navboost disponibles' adds only modest context.

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?

Given no parameters, read-only annotations, and the endpoint, the description is mostly sufficient for invoking the tool. However, with no output schema, the agent is not told what the catalogue entries actually look like, so completeness is not full.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adequately conveys the endpoint and resource without needing to explain parameter 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 identifies the resource as a catalogue of NavRank/ClickRank reports and includes the GET endpoint, so an agent can infer a list operation. It does not state an explicit verb, but 'Catalogue' and the sibling getNavrankReport make the distinction from fetching a single report 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 on when to use this tool versus getNavrankReport or other list tools, and no conditions or exclusions are stated. The endpoint is provided, but selection criteria are left entirely to the agent.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools