noindex_checker[FREE] Check if a URL is indexable — detects noindex tags, canonical issues, robots.txt blocks. FR: Vérifiez si une URL est indexable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the types of checks performed (noindex, canonical, robots.txt), but does not describe the return format, whether the URL is fetched live, or any limitations.
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 two sentences long and front-loads the core function. The French translation and '[FREE]' marker add concise relevant context without unnecessary detail.
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 simple one-parameter tool, the description states the core purpose and detection scope. However, without an output schema or annotation, it omits what the agent should expect in the response, and there is no alternative guidance.
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 input schema already fully documents the sole 'url' parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, so baseline 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 tool checks URL indexability and names three specific issue types (noindex tags, canonical issues, robots.txt blocks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_tag_analyzer or ai_visibility_score.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or context for selecting this over other SEO tools.
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 tools have distinct targets, but seo_audit, seo_plan, and seo_score overlap in purpose—all evaluate SEO health with varying depth, which could confuse an agent. noindex_checker and ai_visibility_score also both touch indexing/crawling, though from different angles.
Tool names are predominantly descriptive noun phrases in snake_case (broken_link_check, keyword_generator, seo_audit), but 'discover' is a lone verb and there's a mix of suffixes (_check, _analyzer, _validator, _score). Still, the pattern is readable and mostly consistent.
With 12 tools, the server covers a broad SEO toolkit without overwhelming. Each tool adds a distinct diagnostic capability, and the count fits well within the ideal 3-15 range.
The suite covers crawling, indexing, content, schema, performance, and overall audits—solid diagnostic coverage. Minor gaps like sitemap validation or backlink analysis exist, but the core SEO workflows are well supported.