Run bulk B2B enrichment, AEO scoring, or DNS inspection across up to 25 domains in one parallel request.
Bulk parallel B2B enrichment, AEO scoring, or DNS inspection for up to 25 domains in a single request (Requires Growth Pro or Agency Scale API Key).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Which intelligence engine to run across the batch (default: "enrich"). | |
| domains | Yes | List of up to 25 domains to process in parallel. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses parallel execution, the 25-domain cap, and the required API plan level. It says nothing about partial failures, rate limits, cost per domain, or whether a bad domain aborts the batch — significant gaps for a bulk mutation-style call.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that packs scope, modes, cap, and the auth prerequisite with no filler. Nothing needs trimming.
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?
A simple two-parameter tool, but with no output schema the description should indicate what a per-domain result looks like and how partial failures surface across 25 parallel items. Those omissions leave an agent guessing at the response shape after it commits to the call.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the enum labels by spelling out what each mode actually does (B2B enrichment, AEO scoring, DNS inspection) and restating the 25-domain cap on `domains`. That mapping of enum values to real behavior is genuine added meaning.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource (bulk parallel enrichment / AEO scoring / DNS inspection) scoped to domains, and the three modes map clearly onto the single-domain siblings (enrich_company_domain, audit_ai_search_readiness, inspect_domain_infra). It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is by inference from 'bulk' and 'batch' rather than stated.
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?
Implies the usage condition (multiple domains, up to 25, in one parallel request) and discloses a plan prerequisite. It never states when to prefer this over the single-domain tools, nor what to do for batches larger than 25, leaving the batch-vs-single decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.