Fetches any public URL and returns structured on-page SEO signals: title, meta description, canonical, lang, heading counts, JSON-LD schema types, OpenGraph/Twitter cards, internal/external link counts, word count, and whether Cloudflare Markdown for Agents (Accept: text/markdown) returns markdown for this URL. Designed to power the page-seo-score and geo-aeo-readiness skills.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Absolute http(s) URL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the tool fetches any public URL and returns a specific set of signals, including behavior for Cloudflare Markdown. However, it does not detail error handling, rate limits, or whether authentication is needed.
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?
Description is two sentences, front-loaded with action and result, no unnecessary words. Efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given no output schema, description lists returned signals in detail, which is helpful. Lacks error handling or validation details, but adequate for a single-parameter tool.
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?
Only one parameter (url) with schema coverage 100%. Description adds that the URL must be public and absolute, consistent with schema. No additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Description clearly states the tool fetches any public URL and returns structured on-page SEO signals, listing specific signals. It differentiates from siblings like analyze_site and get_page by focusing on SEO diagnostics and mentions specific skills it powers.
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?
Description indicates the tool is designed for page-seo-score and geo-aeo-readiness skills, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like analyze_site or search. No when-not guidance is provided.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: page SEO vs site AI discovery vs bot checks vs graph computation vs link extraction vs brand info vs page fetching vs listing vs entity lookup vs freshness parsing vs search. No overlapping responsibilities.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lower_snake_case (e.g., analyze_page, check_bots, compute_link_graph). No mixing of conventions.
11 tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose (SEO/web analysis). Each tool earns its place, covering page, site, bot, link graph, entity, and freshness analysis without unnecessary bulk.
The tool surface appears complete for its domain: it covers individual page SEO, site-wide AI discovery, bot accessibility, link graph analysis, entity lookup, and freshness signals. No obvious gaps for the intended analysis workflows.
