seo_audit[FREE] Full 8-category SEO audit for any URL. Returns score, issues, strengths. No account needed. FR: Audit SEO complet en 8 catégories pour n'importe quelle URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to audit (e.g. https://example.com) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries transparency burden. It discloses that it's free and requires no account, and outlines return content. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations, rate limits, or whether it modifies anything, though an audit is likely read-only.
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 concise, front-loaded with key features (FREE, 8 categories, outputs), and includes a French translation for accessibility. No wasted words.
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 with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it does and what it returns. It could mention time/error behavior but is otherwise complete.
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 schema covers the url parameter fully with an example. The description adds 'any URL' and '8 categories' but doesn't provide additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.
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 a full 8-category SEO audit for any URL, with explicit outputs (score, issues, strengths). It distinguishes itself from the more specific sibling tools (e.g., broken_link_check, seo_score) by emphasizing completeness.
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 use for a comprehensive audit but doesn't explicitly contrast with single-purpose sibling tools. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.
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.