Runs the complete 8-dimension audit suite, computes 0-100 scores and letter grades, builds the P0-P3 prioritized action matrix, and outputs formatted Markdown report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Target file path or live URL. | |
| projectPath | No | Optional project root directory. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently lists what the tool runs, what it computes, and what format it outputs, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., crawling, file writes), execution cost, or whether a prior discovery/crawl is required.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and flows logically through the pipeline: run suite, compute scores, build matrix, output report. Every clause contributes meaningful information with zero filler.
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 that there is no output schema, the description usefully specifies the output format (Markdown report) and its contents. The required parameter is documented in the schema, and the optional parameter is self-explanatory. A minor gap is not enumerating the 8 dimensions or stating prerequisites, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'target' and 'projectPath' already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the specific verb ('Runs'), the resource ('complete 8-dimension audit suite'), and the concrete outputs (scores, grades, action matrix, Markdown report). The word 'complete' and the detailed pipeline distinguish it from the individual seo_audit_* siblings without opening any schemas.
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?
The description implies this is the comprehensive/aggregate audit tool versus the single-dimension siblings, but it never explicitly states when to choose it over them or when not to. The 'complete 8-dimension audit suite' phrasing provides context, but no alternatives or exclusion conditions are given.
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.