agentseo_site_sitemap_auditAudit sitemap coverage, orphan-page candidates, important URLs, canonical/indexability noise, and internal-link gaps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sync | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| crawl_urls | No | ||
| sitemap_url | No | ||
| sitemap_xml | No | ||
| important_urls | No | ||
| internal_links | No | ||
| max_sitemap_children | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It only states it 'audits' which implies read-only, but does not explicitly disclose side effects, auth requirements, or data persistence. Minimal behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence of 15 words, no redundancy. Lists multiple covered aspects efficiently, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity.
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?
Given the complexity (8 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is too brief. It fails to provide parameter details, usage context, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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 0% and description adds no individual parameter explanations. With 8 parameters (sync, target, crawl_urls, etc.), no guidance on their purpose, format, or relationship is given beyond the high-level audit areas.
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 uses specific verb 'audit' and explicitly lists coverage areas (sitemap, orphan pages, important URLs, canonical/indexability noise, internal-link gaps). This clearly distinguishes from siblings like agentseo_content_internal_links which focuses only on internal links.
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?
Description implies usage for site structure analysis but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named or exclusions stated.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose due to specific naming (e.g., backlinks_anchors vs backlinks_list) and grouped prefixes. Overlaps are minimal and clarified by descriptions.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with the 'agentseo_' prefix and domain-specific nouns/verbs (e.g., agentseo_backlinks_anchors, agentseo_content_brief). No mixed conventions.
With 45 tools, the server is on the heavy side for an agent to navigate, though the tools are logically grouped into subdomains (backlinks, content, etc.), justifying the count.
The toolset covers a wide range of SEO tasks including backlinks, content, keywords, SERP analysis, and local SEO. Minor gaps exist (e.g., advanced automation), but core workflows are well-represented.