AuditAE SEO MCP

Validate a schema.org JSON-LD payload against the AuditAE-supported types

validate_schema

Read-only

Check a schema.org JSON-LD object before it ships: every node and the nested items engines read (FAQ answers, breadcrumbs, HowTo steps, Product offers/ratings, addresses), each issue with a property path.

Billing: free — local check, no network, no LLM tokens.

When to call: before every wp_set_post_schema / wp_set_organization_schema / wp_set_faq_schema write and on hand-edited JSON-LD (generate_schema already validates).

Types: Article, BlogPosting, HowTo, FAQPage, Product, Organization, BreadcrumbList, WebSite, SoftwareApplication, Service, LocalBusiness, WebPage, Person and subtypes. Checks: schema.org @context, absolute URLs, ISO 8601 dates/durations, enums, ISO 4217 currencies, plain-number prices, Product offers/review/rating; misspelled properties warn.

Returns { valid, type, checked_types, issues: [{severity: error|warning|info, property, message}], suggestions, suggested_next?, next_step? }. Fix every error and re-validate before writing; each message says whether the rule is Google's or AuditAE's.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "payload": "<payload>"
    },
    "name": "validate_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`payload`	Yes	The full JSON-LD object, including @context and @type (or a @graph array).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/destructive, but the description adds cost ('free — local check, no network, no LLM tokens'), execution model, full return shape with severity levels, and rule provenance (Google's vs AuditAE's). That is rich context well beyond what the annotations carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then labeled sections (Billing, When to call, Types, Returns). Dense but each line carries information; the types and checks enumerations are the only slightly heavy portion and still earn their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by spelling out the full return object (valid, type, checked_types, issues with severity/property/message, suggestions, next_step) plus the re-validate-before-writing workflow. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning on what the payload is checked for (nodes, nested items like FAQ answers, breadcrumbs, HowTo steps, Product offers/ratings) and which types are accepted, going beyond the schema's brief property description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Check/validate') against a specific resource (schema.org JSON-LD payload) and scopes it to supported types. It clearly distinguishes itself from generate_schema and the wp_set_* write siblings, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit 'When to call' section names the exact write tools to precede (wp_set_post_schema / wp_set_organization_schema / wp_set_faq_schema) and notes generate_schema already validates. This is explicit when-to-use plus named alternatives, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AuditAE SEO MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?