Authorize a site or domain to an account, enabling SEO monitoring and analysis for that domain.
Authorize a specific site or domain for an account (Account Boundary)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | Yes | The ID of the account | |
| site | Yes | The site URL or domain (e.g., example.com) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates an authorization action (likely a mutation) but does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or response behavior. This is insufficient transparency for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single sentence, achieving conciseness. However, the brevity sacrifices clarity on behavioral details. It could be slightly expanded to include usage context without becoming verbose.
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?
Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description lacks completeness. It does not specify return values, success signals, error conditions, or the implications of 'Account Boundary'. A more complete description would cover these aspects.
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?
Input schema already describes both parameters with high coverage (100%). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as formatting expectations for 'site' or what 'Account Boundary' implies. Baseline 3 applies as no extra value is provided.
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?
Description clearly states the action 'Authorize a specific site or domain for an account', which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'sites_add' that might have similar functionality. The 'Account Boundary' parenthetical adds context but is not fully explained.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'sites_add' or 'sites_delete'. No explicit context or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the brief description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.