SEO & Web Analysis MCP Server
Server Details
MCP server for SEO and web analysis data including keyword rankings, backlink profiles, site audits, and traffic analytics for AI agents.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct layer of web infrastructure: DNS resolution, SSL certificates, content crawling, technology fingerprinting, and domain registration. No functional overlap exists between checking SSL details versus WHOIS data or crawling content.
All five tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_dns, check_ssl, crawl_website, detect_tech_stack, lookup_whois). The verb choices clearly indicate the action type (check vs crawl vs detect vs lookup) and maintain uniform formatting.
Five tools represents an appropriately focused scope for technical web reconnaissance. The count avoids bloat while covering the essential pre-audit checks (infrastructure, content, technology, ownership) that an agent would need for website analysis.
While the tools cover technical infrastructure well, the 'SEO' branding suggests missing capabilities like on-page SEO analysis (meta tags, headings), sitemap/robots.txt validation, or keyword extraction that would be expected for search optimization workflows. The surface is complete for basic technical reconnaissance but has notable gaps for full SEO coverage.
Available Tools
5 toolscheck_dnsCRead-onlyInspect
Perform DNS lookup to retrieve DNS record details for a domain. Returns A records (IP addresses), MX records (mail servers), CNAME records, NS records (nameservers), and TXT records. Use for email setup verification, DNS troubleshooting, or server infrastructure research.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to look up (e.g. 'google.com', 'example.org', 'subdomain.example.com') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description reveals no behavioral details (record types queried, timeout behavior, or caching).
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?
Extremely terse with no filler, though appropriate sizing is debatable given lack of schema documentation.
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?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool but lacks mention of what DNS record types are returned or 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining domain format requirements or constraints.
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?
States specific action (Look up) and resource (DNS records), clearly distinguishing from siblings like check_ssl and lookup_whois.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when DNS lookup is the right diagnostic choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_sslCRead-onlyInspect
Inspect SSL/TLS certificate details for a domain. Returns certificate issuer, expiration date, subject alternative names (SANs), key strength, and certificate chain validation status. Use for security audits, certificate renewal tracking, or compliance verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to check SSL certificate (e.g. 'example.com', 'api.example.com') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, yet description fails to disclose failure modes (invalid domain, no SSL), output format, or rate limits.
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 is appropriately front-loaded with verb, though extreme brevity sacrifices necessary context.
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?
Lacks output schema and description omits what certificate attributes are returned (expiry, issuer, chain), leaving agent unprepared for results.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, description adds only 'for a domain' without clarifying expected format (FQDN vs URL) or examples.
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?
Clear verb 'Check' and resource 'SSL certificate details' distinguishes from siblings (check_dns, crawl_website, etc.), though 'details' remains vague.
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?
No guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., detect_tech_stack might also reveal SSL info) or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
crawl_websiteCRead-onlyInspect
Crawl a website and extract structured content from all accessible pages. Returns page titles, meta descriptions, headings, body text, internal/external links, and page structure. Use for SEO audits, content inventory, site mapping, or data extraction for analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Website URL to crawl (e.g. 'https://www.example.com', 'example.com') | |
| max_pages | No | Maximum number of pages to crawl (default 10, higher for full site scans) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, description fails to disclose rate limits, robots.txt compliance, auth needs, or side effects.
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 is front-loaded with action verbs, though extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail.
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?
Lacking output schema and annotations, description omits return value structure and behavioral expectations.
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 has 0% description coverage; description adds no parameter semantics (e.g., URL format, max_pages scope) to compensate.
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?
Uses specific verbs (crawl, extract) and distinguishes from network diagnostic siblings, though 'structured content' remains vague.
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?
No guidance on when to use versus alternatives or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
detect_tech_stackARead-onlyInspect
Identify the technology stack and services used by a website. Returns framework names, CMS platform, JavaScript libraries, analytics services, CDN provider, hosting provider, and security tools detected. Use for competitive analysis, vendor intelligence, or understanding site architecture.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Website URL to analyze (e.g. 'https://www.example.com') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses detection scope (what categories are identified) but omits operational details like whether it makes active HTTP requests, has rate limits, or side effects; no annotations present to contradict.
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?
Extremely concise, front-loaded with the action verb, uses em-dash effectively for examples, 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?
Adequate for a simple single-parameter tool; compensates for missing output schema by listing expected detection categories (frameworks, CMS, etc.).
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 has 0% description coverage; description partially compensates by implying the URL is a website, but does not explicitly document parameter semantics or format requirements.
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?
Specific verb (detect) + clear resource (technology stack) with concrete examples (frameworks, CMS, analytics, CDN), clearly distinguishes from infrastructure-focused siblings like check_dns and check_ssl.
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?
Implied usage is clear from the specific purpose, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives like crawl_website.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_whoisCRead-onlyInspect
Query WHOIS database for domain registration details. Returns registrant name, registrar, registration and expiration dates, registrant contact info, and nameserver list. Use for domain research, owner identification, or tracking registration status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to look up in WHOIS (e.g. 'example.com', 'company.org') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose error behavior, rate limits, GDPR redaction, or whether it queries live vs cached data.
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?
Extremely brief (9 words) and front-loaded, though appropriate brevity crosses into insufficient detail for other dimensions.
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?
Lacks output schema and description omits what data structure/fields are returned (registrant, dates, nameservers), leaving agents uncertain about result 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?
Mentions 'domain' which aligns with the parameter name, but with 0% schema description coverage, it fails to specify format (with/without www), validation rules, or IDN support.
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?
Clearly states the action (lookup) and resource (WHOIS data) and implicitly distinguishes from network siblings (DNS/SSL), though could specify what WHOIS data contains (registrar, expiration, etc.).
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use versus alternatives like check_dns, or when WHOIS data might be unavailable/redacted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!