Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

APIVerve

by com.apiverve
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

SEO Data Scraper

SEODataScraper
Read-only

SEO Data Scraper: SEO Data Scraper parses any public URL to collect title tags, meta descriptions, robots directives, and Open Graph or Twitter card previews. Paid plans add canonical URLs to verify indexing rules. (Cost: 10 credits)

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "SEODataScraper"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL of the web page to scrape SEO data from

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
errorNoError message, null on success
statusNo"ok" on success

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: it costs 10 credits and some fields (canonical URLs) are gated behind paid plans, warning the agent that returned data may be incomplete. It does not explain rate limits or failure behavior on non-public/unreachable URLs, which would be the remaining gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core content is front-loaded and reasonably tight, but the leading 'SEO Data Scraper: SEO Data Scraper parses' duplication wastes space and delays the actual purpose. The parenthetical cost note is well placed; the redundant name repetition is not.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema, full parameter coverage, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: enumerated fields collected, cost, and plan-tier limitations. It is nearly complete; explicitly routing away from SEOQuickValidator/MetadataExtractor is the only meaningful omission.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single required 'url' parameter already documented in the schema with an example. The description's phrase 'parses any public URL' reinforces the constraint that the URL must be public, which slightly extends the schema, but otherwise adds nothing beyond it, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb (parses) on a specific resource (public URL) and enumerates the data collected: title tags, meta descriptions, robots directives, and OG/Twitter card previews. This differentiates it fairly well from generic siblings like URLTitle or MetadataExtractor. It only loses points because the opening 'SEO Data Scraper: SEO Data Scraper' redundantly restates the tool name instead of immediately stating purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite siblings such as SEOQuickValidator, URLTitle, and MetadataExtractor that overlap in scope. The agent is left to infer that this tool is the richer SEO-specific option on its own.

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

All APIVerve toolsInspect
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