page_speed_check[FREE] Performance check with real Core Web Vitals (CrUX field data) + Lighthouse score + page weight analysis. FR: Vérification de performance avec vrais Core Web Vitals (données terrain CrUX) + score Lighthouse + analyse du poids de page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses data sources (CrUX field data, Lighthouse, page weight) and notes it's free, but doesn't state whether it's a read-only operation or any other behavioral constraints.
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?
Two sentences with English and French versions, front-loaded with [FREE]. It is compact, though the French repetition adds length without new information for English readers.
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 single-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's scope. It doesn't document return format or potential limitations, but the core functionality is clear.
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 description 'The URL to check' covering 100%. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond that, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance.
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 states 'Performance check with real Core Web Vitals (CrUX field data) + Lighthouse score + page weight analysis' – a specific verb and resource, clearly differentiated from sibling SEO tools that focus on audits, keywords, or schema.
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 explicit when to use vs alternatives. The description implies usage for performance checks, but does not mention when not to use it or which sibling tool to use instead for broader SEO audits.
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.