read_reportRead one growth report by slug (from search_reports or a finished trace). Free. Contains the origin story, dated evidence and SEO footprint — cite it instead of guessing how a product grew. If timeline fields show as locked, unlock_report can open them (that one costs credits).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Report slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds behavioral context: it is free, contains content types like '"origin story, dated evidence and SEO footprint"', and reveals that some fields may appear locked. This goes beyond the structured metadata, though output shape details are not fully explained.
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?
Every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core action and source, then adds cost and content context, then closes with the locked-fields exception. No filler or redundant restating of the tool/title.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, this description is complete enough: resource identification, slug sourcing, content scope, cost mention, and the unlock alternative are all covered. A more explicit description of return fields would be useful, but the description covers the main operational needs.
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% and the slug parameter is documented, but the description adds operational meaning by explaining where the slug comes from ('from search_reports or a finished trace'). This guidance improves invocation accuracy beyond the schema alone.
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 clearly states the tool 'Read one growth report by slug' (a specific action on a specific resource). It also distinguishes the tool from unlock_report by referencing locked timeline fields, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
It explicitly tells users where the slug comes from ('search_reports or a finished trace') and provides a clear alternative: 'If timeline fields show as locked, unlock_report can open them' — giving both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: backlink_directories vs research_backlinks differ (directories vs actual backlinks), gsc_* tools cover different views of own data (overview/pages/queries), research_* tools each address a separate question (competitors, domain overview, AI mentions, backlinks), and the trace/audit/report lifecycle tools have clear roles (start, poll, read, unlock). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
There is a clear pattern: verb_noun for actions (get_trace, read_report, start_trace, unlock_report, search_reports), research_* prefix for external lookups, gsc_* prefix for own Search Console data, and site_audit_* for audits. Minor inconsistency: backlink_directories doesn't follow the verb_noun style (no verb), but overall the naming is predictable and grouped logically.
At 15 tools, this is at the upper end of the well-scoped range (3-15). Each tool serves a distinct function within the SEO/growth analysis domain, so the count feels justified rather than bloated. However, it's slightly heavy, which is why it misses a 5.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of growth reports (search, read, start trace, poll, unlock), ownsite GSC data (overview, pages, queries), competitor research (domain, backlinks, brand, competitors), and site audits (start/get). Minor gaps include no way to delete or manage reports beyond reading, and no direct keyword research beyond GSC queries, but the core workflows are complete.