keyword-density-checkerAnalyze text for the most frequent words and phrases with their density, to spot keyword stuffing or thin coverage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | Phrase length (n-gram). | |
| text | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| removeStopwords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already conveys safe read operations, and the description adds that it outputs the most frequent words/phrases with density. However, it does not disclose return format, stopword handling behavior, or limits, so some context is missing beyond the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant details. It efficiently communicates the core function.
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?
With no output schema and only one parameter documented, the description leaves meaningful gaps about expected return data and parameter effects. It provides a basic understanding but not enough for robust agent invocation without additional assumptions.
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?
Schema coverage is only 25% (only the 'n' parameter has a description). The tool description does not explain any of the parameters, including text, limit, or removeStopwords, leaving agents without sufficient guidance 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 clearly states the tool analyzes text to find the most frequent words and phrases and their density, with the purpose of spotting keyword stuffing or thin coverage. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like word-counter or readability-checker.
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 case is implied through the mention of keyword stuffing and thin coverage, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusionary guidance. It lacks comparisons to sibling 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 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.