SearchAtlas MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.3.8
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific SEO and marketing domains (e.g., keywords, content, PPC), but there is some overlap in scope between 'searchatlas_site_explorer' (site audit) and 'searchatlas_otto_seo' (on-page SEO), which could cause confusion as both involve site analysis and optimization. The descriptions help clarify, but boundaries are not perfectly sharp.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'searchatlas_' prefix with snake_case and clear verb_noun patterns (e.g., 'searchatlas_create_project', 'searchatlas_list_projects'), making them predictable and easy to parse. There are no deviations in naming conventions across the set.
Tool Count4/5
With 16 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a comprehensive SEO and marketing platform, covering areas like content, keywords, PPC, and site management. It feels a bit heavy but not excessive, as each tool appears to serve a distinct function within the broad domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides broad coverage for SEO and marketing tasks, including project management, content generation, keyword research, and automation. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tools for deleting projects or managing user settings, but core workflows are well-supported, and agents can likely work around these omissions.
Average 2.9/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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

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 mentions 'link building and digital PR' activities but doesn't describe what the tool does behaviorally—e.g., whether it executes outreach, generates reports, requires authentication, has rate limits, or modifies data. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential mutative actions, as it lacks details on permissions, side effects, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase that front-loads the purpose. However, it's slightly under-specified for clarity, as it could benefit from a more specific verb to enhance understanding without adding unnecessary length.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or when to use it, which is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and potential complex operations like link building. More context is needed to guide effective 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters (message, project_id, playbook_id, plan_mode) with descriptions. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters relate to link building activities. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 'Link building and digital PR — outreach, guest posts, and authority signals' states a general purpose (link building/digital PR) and lists activities (outreach, guest posts, authority signals), but it's vague about what the tool actually does—whether it initiates, manages, or analyzes these activities. It doesn't specify a clear verb+resource combination (e.g., 'execute link building campaigns' or 'analyze authority signals'), and it doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'searchatlas_run_playbook' or 'searchatlas_content' that might overlap in SEO-related functions.
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 mentions activities but doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'searchatlas_run_playbook' and 'searchatlas_content', there's no indication of when this tool is preferred, leaving usage unclear.
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 mentions 'management' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or what actions it performs (e.g., read vs. write). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 that directly states the tool's domain. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words, though it could be more specific to enhance clarity.
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 implied by 'management' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it handles errors, or the scope of operations, making it inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no structured behavioral hints.
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 fully documents the four parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond this, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing examples, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 tool is for 'Google Business Profile management — listings, reviews, and local SEO', which provides a general domain but lacks a specific verb or action. It doesn't clearly distinguish what this tool does versus its siblings like 'searchatlas_run_playbook' or 'searchatlas_ppc', making the purpose somewhat vague.
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 mentions a broad domain but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the general topic.
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 burden. It mentions 'audit and analysis' which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it performs mutations, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output entails. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral detail 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be more structured by explicitly separating functions. Every part earns its place, making it 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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, and how it integrates with siblings. For an analysis tool, more context on what 'audit and analysis' entails and the results is needed, making it inadequate for full agent 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the generic 'site audit and analysis' context. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.
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 tool performs 'site audit and analysis' with specific areas (crawl data, backlink profiles, competitive intelligence), which gives a general purpose. However, it doesn't specify a clear verb-action relationship or distinguish this from sibling tools like searchatlas_website_studio or searchatlas_authority_building that might have overlapping SEO functions, making it somewhat vague.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with multiple SEO-related siblings, there's no indication of how this differs from tools like searchatlas_content or searchatlas_keywords, 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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'AI content generation' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only or write operation, what permissions are needed, how long it takes, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose with examples. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning it's for generating content via an AI agent.
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 a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it interacts with the AI agent, or the implications of parameters like 'plan_mode'. For content generation, more context about output format or usage scenarios would be helpful.
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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying general content generation. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any contextual insights about parameter usage.
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 purpose as 'AI content generation' with specific examples (blog posts, landing pages, optimized copy), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchatlas_website_studio' or 'searchatlas_run_playbook' which might also involve content generation, leaving some ambiguity about 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for choosing this over other content-related tools, or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate domains, or what the expected response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. There's zero waste or redundancy in the phrasing, making it maximally concise while still being 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?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful creation, what data is returned, error conditions, or how this tool integrates with the broader SearchAtlas ecosystem. The user gets minimal context beyond the basic action.
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 already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description doesn't enhance understanding of how these parameters affect project creation.
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 ('Create') and resource ('new SearchAtlas project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'searchatlas_list_projects' by focusing on creation rather than listing. However, it doesn't specify what a 'SearchAtlas project' entails or how it differs from other project types in the system.
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. With siblings like 'searchatlas_list_projects' and 'searchatlas_run_playbook', there's no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate contexts for project creation versus other operations. The user must 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Keyword research' implies a read-only analytical operation, the description doesn't specify whether this tool makes API calls to external services, has rate limits, requires authentication, returns structured data, or has any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?
The description is extremely concise - a single phrase listing the tool's capabilities. Every word earns its place by specifying different aspects of keyword research. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately 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 complexity of keyword research (which typically involves multiple metrics and analyses), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the results will be in, what specific metrics are returned, whether there are limitations on query volume, or how the clustering functionality works. For a research tool with rich potential outputs, more context 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain how parameters like 'message', 'project_id', or 'playbook_id' relate to keyword research functionality. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose as 'Keyword research' with specific components: 'search volume, difficulty, SERP analysis, and clustering'. This provides a specific verb ('research') and resource ('keywords') with detailed scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchatlas_content' or 'searchatlas_ppc' which might also involve keyword-related functionality.
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. With multiple sibling tools available (e.g., searchatlas_content, searchatlas_ppc, searchatlas_site_explorer), there's no indication of when keyword research is appropriate versus other SEO or content analysis tools. The description lacks any 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 full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like pagination details (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'across all sessions' entails in terms of scope or permissions.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List artifacts') and includes helpful examples. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error handling. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps in understanding 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering by type with examples ('e.g. code, text, html'), which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
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 ('List') and resource ('artifacts') with examples of what artifacts include ('code, content, reports'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchatlas_list_conversations' or 'searchatlas_list_projects', which also list resources, so it misses full sibling 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'across all sessions' but doesn't clarify if this is the only way to list artifacts or when to choose it over other list tools, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'tracks' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format is, or any rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like output format, error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how parameters like 'message' or 'playbook_id' relate to brand monitoring). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose as 'LLM brand monitoring — tracks how AI models reference your brand and competitors,' which specifies the verb (tracks) and resource (brand/competitor references in AI models). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like searchatlas_content or searchatlas_keywords, which might also involve monitoring or analysis, so it's not 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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like searchatlas_run_playbook or searchatlas_authority_building, leaving the agent to guess based on 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'automation' and 'deploys' which implies execution/mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only preview or actually makes changes, what permissions are needed, whether it's destructive, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 'deploys' in its description and no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'on-page SEO automation' establishes the domain, and the three-item list specifies the scope. No wasted words 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?
For an automation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'deploys' means operationally - whether this executes changes or just plans them, what the response contains, or how it differs from related tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the behavioral context is critically lacking for what appears to be a mutation/execution 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 schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how 'message', 'project_id', 'playbook_id', or 'plan_mode' relate to the SEO automation process. With high schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value but doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 purpose as 'on-page SEO automation' with specific actions: 'deploys technical fixes, schema markup, and content optimizations.' This provides a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchatlas_content' or 'searchatlas_run_playbook' which might also handle content or automation aspects.
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. With multiple sibling tools like 'searchatlas_content', 'searchatlas_run_playbook', and 'searchatlas_website_studio' that might overlap in SEO or automation domains, there's no indication of when this specific automation tool is appropriate versus those others. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual boundaries are 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions three functional areas but doesn't describe how the tool behaves—e.g., whether it executes actions or just analyzes, what permissions are needed, if it modifies live campaigns, rate limits, or output format. The description is too high-level to guide an agent on behavioral expectations.
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 that front-loads the key domain and functions without unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by separating the three functions for clarity, and it lacks any follow-up context that might be useful for an agent.
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 implied by managing P campaigns (which often involve mutations and analysis), no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address how the tool integrates with the broader system (e.g., via playbooks or projects mentioned in parameters), what results to expect, or safety considerations for a potentially destructive domain like ad management.
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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the tool handles PPC-related messages. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate with additional context like example messages or parameter interactions.
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 purpose as 'PPC / Google Ads management — campaign creation, bid strategy, and performance analysis', which specifies the domain (PPC/Google Ads) and three key functions. It distinguishes from most siblings (e.g., content, keywords, SEO tools) by focusing on paid advertising, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible alternatives within the same domain.
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 mentions three functions but doesn't specify contexts for campaign creation vs. bid strategy vs. performance analysis, nor does it reference sibling tools like searchatlas_run_playbook that might overlap. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
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 but provides minimal behavioral insight. It mentions execution and agent usage but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's destructive, rate limits, or expected outcomes. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs significant automation actions.
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 that front-loads the core action. It could be slightly more informative but avoids redundancy and 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 a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like execution safety, response format, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain playbook selection criteria or agent namespace implications), but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
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 ('Execute') and target ('a playbook on a project'), specifying it's an automation recipe. It distinguishes from siblings like 'searchatlas_list_playbooks' by focusing on execution rather than listing, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all 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 is provided. It mentions 'using the appropriate agent' but doesn't specify what makes an agent appropriate or when to choose this over other tools like 'searchatlas_orchestrator' or 'searchatlas_llm_visibility'.
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 mentions creation and editing actions but fails to detail permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response formats. This is inadequate for a tool with potential mutations and complex operations.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by concisely conveying the tool's function, making it easy to scan and understand.
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 a website builder with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, error handling, and integration with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for effective agent 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as how 'message' relates to website building or the role of 'playbook_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 tool's purpose as a website builder that creates and edits pages, layouts, and site structure, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings like content creation or project listing tools by focusing on website construction, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar website-related 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other website-related siblings or general content tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.
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 burden. It mentions authentication ('for the authenticated user') which is useful, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explicitly stated), rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with pagination/search parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and authentication context but lacks details about output format, error handling, and usage guidance that would be helpful 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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 when 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 ('List') and resource ('SearchAtlas projects') with scope ('for the authenticated user'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling list tools like searchatlas_list_artifacts or searchatlas_list_playbooks, which would require mentioning it's specifically about projects rather than other resource types.
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 doesn't mention when to use searchatlas_list_projects versus searchatlas_create_project or other project-related tools, nor does it provide context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
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 mentions listing and optional filtering, but fails to describe key behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, error cases). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List conversation sessions') and adds a useful qualifier ('optionally filtered by agent'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly 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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, search functionality), output format, or error handling. While the schema covers parameters, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should compensate more to provide a complete picture 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 input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning optional filtering by agent, which loosely relates to 'agent_namespace', but doesn't provide additional semantics, examples, or constraints. This meets the baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'conversation sessions', making the purpose evident. It also mentions optional filtering by agent, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchatlas_list_artifacts' or 'searchatlas_list_playbooks', which also list resources, preventing 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 description implies usage context by mentioning optional filtering by agent, suggesting it's for retrieving conversations, possibly in a search or monitoring scenario. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no comparison to other list tools or search functions), and there's no mention of 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 mentions filtering capabilities but fails to describe key behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by page/page_size parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like (especially critical since there's no output schema). For a list tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List available playbooks') and immediately adds optional filtering context. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted phrasing, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but lacks crucial behavioral context (e.g., pagination, return format, error handling) and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema. For a tool that likely returns a list of playbooks with metadata, more guidance on the response structure would be helpful.
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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'filtered by agent or ownership', which loosely maps to the 'filter' and 'agent_namespace' parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('available playbooks (automation recipes)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like searchatlas_run_playbook by focusing on listing rather than execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like searchatlas_list_artifacts or searchatlas_list_projects beyond the resource type.
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 through the phrase 'optionally filtered by agent or ownership', suggesting it's for retrieving playbooks with potential filtering. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like searchatlas_list_artifacts or searchatlas_list_projects, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but not comprehensive.
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 burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read/write operation, what happens during routing (e.g., agent selection logic), response format, or any constraints like rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic coordination concept.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Multi-agent coordinator') and immediately explains its function. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a coordination tool with 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after routing (e.g., returns agent response, triggers execution), success/failure conditions, or how it interacts with the listed sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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 schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'queries' map to the 'message' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 purpose as a 'multi-agent coordinator' that 'routes queries to the best specialized agent', specifying the verb (routes) and resource (queries). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning agent types (SEO, content, PPC), but doesn't explicitly name which sibling tools it routes to versus those that might be standalone.
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 when needing specialized agent routing, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like direct agent tools (e.g., searchatlas_seo). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.
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:

[![searchatlas-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/search-atlas-group/searchatlas-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/search-atlas-group/searchatlas-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![searchatlas-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/search-atlas-group/searchatlas-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/search-atlas-group/searchatlas-mcp-server)

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/search-atlas-group/searchatlas-mcp-server'

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