Performs Generative Engine Optimization audit: Brand/Organization entities, sameAs knowledge graph reconciliation, Author E-E-A-T credentials, service relationships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Target file path or live URL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It reveals the audit's subject matter but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies anything, how results are returned, or whether special access is required. 'Audit' implies analysis, but the operational behavior is left unstated.
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?
The description is a single focused sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the audit's specific focus areas. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing.
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?
For a one-parameter audit tool this is reasonably compact, but with no annotations and no output schema the agent is left to infer return behavior and operational scope. The listed topics give enough topic-level context to make the first call, yet the description is thin on what the agent should expect from the audit.
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?
The only parameter, target, is fully documented in the schema ('Target file path or live URL'), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional detail about accepted formats, limitations, or interaction with the target.
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?
The description states a specific action ('Performs Generative Engine Optimization audit') and enumerates distinct audit dimensions (Brand/Organization entities, sameAs knowledge graph reconciliation, Author E-E-A-T credentials, service relationships). It is clearly not a generic audit, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling seo_audit_aeo.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to select this tool over siblings such as seo_audit_aeo, seo_audit_schema, or seo_audit_onpage. The intended context is implied only by the tool name and the listed audit topics, with no explicit conditions or exclusions.
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.
Most audit tools target distinct SEO dimensions, but several overlap: seo_audit_technical, seo_audit_robots_and_sitemap, and seo_audit_sitemap_multipage all involve robots.txt, sitemaps, and header checks. The descriptions help, but an agent could easily misselect between these related tools.
All tools follow a consistent seo_ prefix with clear verb_noun snake_case naming: audit_, crawl_, discover_, generate_, suggest_, test_, validate_. There is no mixing of conventions or vague generic verbs.
With 21 tools, the server sits in the 16-25 'heavy' range. The broad SEO scope justifies many of them, but the large number of overlapping audit variants makes the set feel slightly bloated.
The server covers the SEO lifecycle well: discovery, crawling, dimension-specific audits, full audits, code fixes, sitemap/robots generation, and validation. Minor gaps such as dedicated backlink or mobile usability audits exist, and the '8-dimension' full audit claim does not align with the 12 distinct audit tools.