serp-previewPreview how a page's title and meta description render in Google search, with pixel-width truncation for desktop and mobile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | The page URL. | |
| title | Yes | The page title tag. | |
| device | No | desktop | |
| description | No | The meta description. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying pixel-width truncation for desktop and mobile. This discloses how the tool behaves under different device conditions, which is useful for the agent.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and includes relevant details without unnecessary 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?
The description covers the core function and inputs but does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., an image, HTML, or text). Since there is no output schema, this missing information could leave the agent uncertain about the output format.
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 description coverage is 75%, and the description reinforces the meaning of title, description, and device parameters. However, it does not add much beyond the schema for the URL parameter, and the device parameter's enum is already in 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 the tool's specific function: previewing how title and meta description render in Google search. It includes a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('a page's title and meta description') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that generate titles or descriptions.
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 context clearly implies when to use the tool (when you have a title/description and want to see SERP rendering), and there are no exclusions. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or mention when not to use it.
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.