Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

APIVerve

by com.apiverve
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

SEO Quick Validator

SEOQuickValidator
Read-only

SEO Quick Validator: SEO Quick Validator inspects live web pages for on-page SEO errors and tag issues. Pass any URL to inspect title lengths, meta descriptions, H1 headings, viewport and canonical tags, image alt text, and unverified external links. (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": "SEOQuickValidator"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL of the web page to validate the SEO metrics of

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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds material context beyond that: the inspection happens against live pages (external fetch implied by openWorldHint) and each call costs 10 credits, which is useful budget information not present in the structured fields. It stops short of describing failure behavior on unreachable pages or what happens with redirects.

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 body is tight and front-loaded: purpose, then the enumerated checks, then the cost. The only waste is the redundant prefix "SEO Quick Validator: SEO Quick Validator inspects", which restates the title verbatim before the sentence begins.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: scope of the audit, live-fetch nature, and credit cost. Only minor gaps remain, such as how errors are surfaced or whether the page is fetched as-is versus rendered.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the URL argument fully. The description adds meaning about what the URL will be checked against (a useful list of on-page elements) but nothing about URL format, scheme requirements, or whether subpages/paths are supported, so it stays at the baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("inspects live web pages for on-page SEO errors and tag issues") and enumerates the exact checks: title length, meta description, H1, viewport, canonical, image alt text, external links. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling SEODataScraper or URLTitle, so an agent must infer that this tool validates rather than scrapes.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"Pass any URL to inspect..." implies the invocation context, and the credit cost gives a budget signal, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over adjacent siblings such as SEODataScraper, WebsiteReadability, or URLTitle, and no exclusions (e.g. JS-rendered pages, authentication-gated pages).

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