get_reportRetrieves indexed and unindexed URL reports for a task, with optional SERP titles and error codes to diagnose indexing status across search engines.
Indexed and unindexed URLs of a task. full=true adds SERP titles and error codes (-1 noindex, 0 none, else HTTP status).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | ||
| engine | No | Search engine | |
| task_id | Yes | ||
| task_type | No | checker = index check, indexer = indexing task | checker |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine return-value semantics: what full=true unlocks and the -1/0/HTTP status error-code legend. It says nothing about result volume, pagination, or cost of a full report, which for an open-world fetch tool is a meaningful omission beyond the annotations.
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?
Two compact sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the optional-mode detail second. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.
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 no output schema, the description must carry the return shape, and it only partially does: it names the URL lists and the extra fields under full, but not result volume, ordering, or whether the response is aggregated per task. Adequate but leaves an agent guessing about the output for a report-style tool.
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 50%: engine and task_type already carry descriptions and enums, while full and task_id do not. The description compensates well for full by defining exactly what it adds, but adds nothing for task_id. Net value is real but partial, matching the 3 baseline.
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?
The description states concretely what is returned: the indexed and unindexed URLs belonging to a task. That is a specific resource with a clear scope, and the pairing with 'full=true' makes the two output modes obvious. It does not explicitly contrast itself with check_index or get_backlink_report, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool instead of check_index (single-URL index check) or get_backlink_report, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'of a task', which suggests a per-task report retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.