list_rank_alertsRetrieve rank-change alerts from keyword checks, showing keyword, market, and old-to-new rank, newest first. Filter by project or unread status to monitor ASO ranking shifts.
Rank-change alerts raised by checks (keyword, market, from -> to rank), newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max alerts (default 50). | |
| projectId | No | Only alerts for this project. | |
| unreadOnly | No | Only unread alerts (default true). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the ordering trait ('newest first'); it does not mention pagination behavior, whether unreadOnly silently filters most alerts by default, or that the set is capped at the limit.
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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the ordering note appended; no filler. It is slightly compressed to the point of omitting filter guidance, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
With three optional params, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what the structured fields do not: the shape of the returned alert (keyword, market, from -> to rank) and the default ordering. Only the default unread filtering and result-cap behavior are left implicit, which the schema partly covers.
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 limit, projectId, and unreadOnly are all documented in the schema, including the default of true for unreadOnly and the max of 500. The description adds no syntax or scoping nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Rank-change alerts raised by checks') and enumerates the payload fields (keyword, market, from -> to rank) plus the sort order. An agent can distinguish it from acknowledge_alerts, though the description does not name that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the name and the phrase 'raised by checks'; there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of when to prefer acknowledge_alerts or other listing tools, and no prerequisites. Adequate for an obvious read tool but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.