Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by com.abbyseo

Get the SEO Remediation Plan (Claude Code runbook)

get_remediation_plan
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the full paid remediation plan for a purchased scan, as a Markdown runbook built for an AI coding agent to execute. Save the returned markdown to a file named by filename (e.g. seo-remediation-plan.md) in the user's project, then work through it top to bottom. It lists each issue in priority order with the exact fix, copy-ready replacement strings, explicit '❓ ASK THE OWNER' stops where you must get the owner's input (never invent brand names, keywords, phone numbers, or addresses), and a verification step (re-run submit_scan after each fix to confirm it passes). If the scan has NOT been purchased, returns paid=false with guidance to call purchase_report first. If the plan is still generating, returns status='generating' — call again in ~30 seconds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scan_idYesScan ID that was purchased via purchase_report.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context: the plan content (priority issues, fixes, ASK THE OWNER stops, verification step), the need to save to file, and that the tool may return 'generating' or 'paid=false' states. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is somewhat long but front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides useful information, though it could be slightly more concise without losing content. Well-structured.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the possible return states (paid, unpaid, generating) and the expected agent behavior (save file, execute steps, ask owner, verify). It covers all necessary context for the tool's usage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single required parameter scan_id, with a clear description. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only noting the scan_id should be from a purchase. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a paid remediation plan for a purchased scan as a Markdown runbook. It distinguishes from sibling tools like purchase_report and submit_scan by specifying when to use those alternatives.

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?

The description explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool only after a scan is purchased, and provides guidance for edge cases: if not purchased (call purchase_report), if generating (retry later), and what to do with the output (save and execute).

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

All mcp-server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: starting scans, polling status, retrieving results, looking up old scans, checking purchase status, purchasing, getting remediation plans, and server documentation. No ambiguity between tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Seven tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_scan_results, purchase_report). The outlier 'how_to_use' deviates slightly from the pattern. Overall naming is coherent and readable.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools cover the full SEO scan workflow without being excessive. Each tool serves a necessary step, from submission to remediation, so the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core workflow: scan submission, status polling, results retrieval, purchase, purchase status, and remediation plan retrieval. A minor gap is the lack of a tool for user account management or scan history beyond email lookup, but these are not essential for the primary use case.

Resources