cta-generatorCTA Generator: Write effective call-to-action phrases. (free, AI-generated, rate-limited).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | Optional CTA goal, e.g. sign up, buy. | |
| topic | No | ||
| product | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this; the verb 'write' refers to content generation, not data mutation. The description usefully adds that the tool is 'free, AI-generated, rate-limited,' which are behavioral traits not covered by the annotation. This is valuable context beyond the structured fields.
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 exceptionally concise, consisting of a single sentence (plus a parenthetical). It front-loads the core purpose and adds only necessary operational notes. No wasted words or redundant repetition of the title beyond the initial phrase, which is acceptable.
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?
There is no output schema, and the tool has three parameters. The description states the core function but does not describe what the output looks like or how to provide parameters effectively. For a simple text-generation tool, the purpose is clear, but the missing parameter guidance and output expectations leave it minimally viable rather than 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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'goal' has a description), and the tool description itself does not explain any parameters. It neither clarifies what 'product', 'goal', or 'topic' mean nor provides examples or syntax. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it remains silent on parameter semantics.
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 uses the verb 'write' with the specific resource 'call-to-action phrases,' clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling generators like ad-copy-generator or headline-generator. The direct statement 'Write effective call-to-action phrases' is unambiguous and action-oriented.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only additional context is pricing and rate limits, which are operational details rather than usage guidance. No sibling tools are referenced for comparison.
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 purposes, but word-counter and character-counter overlap heavily, and meta-tag-generator subsumes several other generators (title, description, canonical). The sheer number of adjacent content generators creates some ambiguity, though descriptions generally clarify.
Tool names are inconsistent: some use snake_case (create_site, get_article, list_articles) while others use hyphenated lowercase (ad-copy-generator, meta-tag-generator, robots-txt-generator). This mixing of conventions makes it hard for an agent to predict the name for a given action.
With 59 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for a typical MCP server. Many tools are similar (various calculators, many content generators) and could be consolidated, making the surface bloated and harder to navigate.
The server covers a broad range of SEO tasks: site management, article generation/publishing, analytics, technical SEO, and content tools. However, there are gaps such as missing update/delete operations for articles and no backlink analysis, leaving some workflows incomplete.