Comunicate.eu

Analiză SEO

check_article_seo

Read-onlyIdempotent

Cât de bine e scris textul ca articol SEO: număr de cuvinte, linkuri, titluri, imagine, meta. Fiecare constatare are deFacut. Scorul nu spune dacă textul poate fi publicat pe un anumit tip de campanie.

Use when the user wants feedback on how well a text is written for SEO. Do not use when checking whether it meets a campaign type: use check_article_fit.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "articleId": "<articleId>"
    },
    "name": "check_article_seo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`articleId`	Yes	Articolul, din list_articles sau create_article.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`score`	No	number 0–100. Share of SEO checks passed; not a ranking promise.
`stats`	No	object. Word count, headings, images, links, keyword count and density, title and meta length.
`issues`	No	array of {code, severity, deFacut}. Findings, each with what to fix.
`outline`	No	array of {level, text}. Heading structure.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 7, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

changedInput schema / properties / articleId / description

Previous value: -"Id-ul articolului (UUID), din list_articles sau create_article."New value: +"Articolul, din list_articles sau create_article."

removedInput schema / properties / articleId / pattern

Removed value: -"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "issues": {
+      "description": "array of {code, severity, deFacut}. Findings, each with what to fix."
+    },
+    "outline": {
+      "description": "array of {level, text}. Heading structure."
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "description": "number 0–100. Share of SEO checks passed; not a ranking promise."
+    },
+    "stats": {
+      "description": "object. Word count, headings, images, links, keyword count and density, title and meta length."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedNov 7, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / articleId / description
```
Added value: +"Id-ul articolului (UUID), din list_articles sau create_article."
```

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 1, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

addedInput schema / properties / articleId / pattern

Added value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"

First observedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: each finding carries a `deFacut` field, and the score is explicitly scoped to SEO quality rather than campaign-type publishability, which prevents misreading the result. It omits any note on cost, auth, or latency, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is front-loaded: what is checked comes first, then the output shape, then the routing instructions. The only waste is mild redundancy, since the campaign-publishability caveat appears once as a scope note and again as the 'Do not use' clause, though the repetition does reinforce correct routing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still previews the finding structure (`deFacut`) and the scope limit of the score. With one required parameter and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to select and call this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter (articleId) with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already tells the agent to source it from list_articles or create_article. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (checking/analyzing) and a specific resource (an article's SEO quality), then enumerates exactly what is inspected: word count, links, headings, image, meta. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling check_article_fit, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Both directions are stated: 'Use when the user wants feedback on how well a text is written for SEO' and 'Do not use when checking whether it meets a campaign type: use check_article_fit.' The exclusion names the exact alternative tool, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Comunicate.eu tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.