Fetch a URL and run an SEO audit: title/meta description length, canonical tag, Open Graph + Twitter Card tags, html lang attribute, viewport meta, heading structure, image alt-text coverage, internal/external link counts and generic-anchor-text detection, robots meta (noindex/nofollow), structured data (JSON-LD) presence, and robots.txt/sitemap.xml presence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to audit |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description communicates a read-only network fetch and a list of checks, making the core behavior visible. With no annotations provided, however, it does not disclose behaviors like whether JavaScript is executed, how redirects are handled, or how unreachable URLs are surfaced.
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 dense sentence with the main action front-loaded and every listed item carrying substantive meaning. It could be organized as bullet points for easier scanning, but there is no fluff or redundant wording.
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 tool, the description thoroughly explains what is audited, which is enough for basic invocation. Yet without an output schema, it never states the return shape—score, report, boolean flags, or errors—leaving an important gap for agents that need to interpret the result.
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?
There is only one parameter, url, and the schema already describes it as 'The URL to audit' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that the URL is fetched but adds no extra guidance on format, protocols, or URL normalization.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource—'Fetch a URL and run an SEO audit'—and then enumerates a precise checklist of audit dimensions. This immediately distinguishes it from more narrowly-scoped sibling tools like json_ld_schema_validator, check_robots_sitemap, or structured_data_extract.
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 intended use is implied clearly: use this when you want a broad SEO audit of a URL. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to specialized siblings, so an agent is left to infer when a smaller tool would be preferable.
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.
Many tools audit overlapping site signals (seo_audit vs structured_data_extract vs tech_stack_fingerprint; page_performance_check vs pagespeed_insights; ssl_cert_check vs ssl_labs_grade; broken_link_check vs sitemap_url_validator), so an agent could initially pick the wrong one. Descriptions usually clarify the distinction, but the boundaries are not always obvious.
Most names follow a snake_case target+operation pattern (ssl_cert_check, email_deliverability_check), but check_open_ports and check_robots_sitemap reverse the order, and the action suffixes vary widely (check, audit, validate, lookup, extract, grade, report, insights). Still readable, but not a single predictable convention.
At 29 tools, the server is above the 25-tool threshold and feels like an undifferentiated grab bag of single-purpose audits rather than a tightly scoped toolkit. Many checks could be consolidated (e.g. the separate SSL and performance tools, or domain_report versus its component checks).
For a web/domain/email/security diagnostics toolbelt, the coverage is unusually broad: DNS, TLS, email, SEO, structured data, vulnerabilities, ports, redirects, and more are all represented. Minor gaps exist (no generic HTTP request/debug tool, no zone-transfer or full WHOIS history), but agents can accomplish most diagnostic workflows without hitting dead ends.