FUTIA
Server Details
SEO answers for AI agents: Search Console reads free, plus competitor, keyword, backlink, SERP data.
- 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 3.9/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of SEO analysis: budget, backlinks, competitor gaps, indexing, keyword data, page performance, query insights, and SERP positions. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case noun_noun pattern (e.g., account_status, backlink_profile), making them predictable and easy to interpret.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for SEO analysis, covering key areas without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The tool set covers major SEO analysis domains (indexing, keywords, backlinks, competitors, on-page performance), but lacks a tool for tracking changes over time or providing actionable recommendations (e.g., fix suggestions).
Available Tools
8 toolsaccount_statusAccount statusAInspect
Free and instant: remaining monthly budget, credit balance, when the budget resets, and which endpoints stay free. Check this before a paid call if you are unsure the budget covers it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, but the description fully covers behavioral traits: it is free, instant, read-only, and discloses exactly what information is provided.
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?
Two sentences, no unnecessary words, key information front-loaded. Every sentence is essential.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns, making the tool complete and self-contained.
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?
No parameters required; the description adds rich meaning beyond the empty schema by listing the returned data fields (budget, credit, reset time, free endpoints).
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 it provides account status info (remaining budget, credit balance, reset time, free endpoints). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like backlink_profile by focusing on account-level financial data.
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?
Explicitly advises using this tool before a paid call if unsure about budget coverage, establishing a clear when-to-use directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
backlink_profileBacklink profileAInspect
Referring domains, link count, domain rank and a reading of what they mean. Deliberately does not return the raw link list: a thousand rows of links fills an agent's context without producing a decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Search Console property |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behavioral traits: returns summary metrics only, no raw link list, and provides a reading of metrics. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key information, no fluff.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, description fully explains purpose and scope.
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 100% but description adds no additional meaning for the single parameter 'site' beyond 'Search Console property'.
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 what the tool returns (referring domains, link count, domain rank, a reading) and distinguishes from returning raw link lists, which are not included.
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?
Explicitly says it deliberately does not return raw link list to avoid filling context, implying when to use this tool (for summary) vs. alternatives (for raw links).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
competitor_gapCompetitor gapAInspect
Topics a real competitor ranks for and you do not. Competitors are chosen by how much of their keyword set overlaps with yours, not by raw overlap count: raw count returns social networks that rank for everything. Gap keywords are filtered against your existing vocabulary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Search Console property | |
| competitor | No | Optional. If omitted we pick one by overlap ratio. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully explains the competitor selection algorithm and filtering of gap keywords. It does not mention destructive actions or auth needs, but the behavior is sufficiently clear for a read-like analysis tool.
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?
Two sentences, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds essential information.
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 no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (gap topics). It could mention result format or limitations, but overall it is complete enough for an 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 100%, so the description adds value by explaining the 'competitor' parameter's optionality and default behavior (picking by overlap ratio), which goes beyond 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 identifies 'Topics a real competitor ranks for and you do not,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the unique competitor selection method (overlap ratio vs. raw count).
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 description explains how competitors are chosen and why raw count is avoided, providing context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
index_coverageIndex coverageAInspect
Has Google seen your pages? Works with zero traffic data, so it is useful from a site's first day. Returns which URLs are indexed, which were crawled but not indexed, which were never discovered, and where Google picked a different canonical than you declared.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Search Console property, e.g. sc-domain:example.com | |
| urls | No | Optional. Defaults to URLs found in the site's sitemap. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the tool's input (Search Console property) and output categories (indexed, crawled but not indexed, never discovered, canonical mismatch). However, it does not mention potential limitations like API rate limits, data freshness, or permission requirements.
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 two sentences, front-loading the key question and then listing outputs. It is concise without redundancy, though the first sentence could be more direct.
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 tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and its outputs. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination if any, or error handling, which might be needed for a complete understanding.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides (site as SC property, urls defaulting to sitemap). It does explain the tool's functionality but not parameter details.
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 purpose: checking which URLs Google has indexed, crawled, or discovered, and canonical mismatches. It distinguishes from sibling tools like serp_position or keyword_volume by focusing on index coverage.
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 description explicitly mentions it works with zero traffic data, making it useful from day one, implying a usage context when other tools (like page_yield) may not be applicable. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
keyword_volumeKeyword volumeAInspect
Search volume and difficulty for keywords you name, each with a verdict on whether this particular site can realistically reach it. The verdict is measured against the difficulty of keywords the site already ranks for, not a universal threshold.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Search Console property | |
| keywords | Yes | Up to 100 keywords |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the relative nature of the verdict, which adds transparency. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects, leaving gaps for a read tool.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary function, and contains no redundant information. Every clause serves a purpose.
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 no output schema, the description provides essential information about the tool's output (volume, difficulty, verdict) but omits details on return format, error handling, or limitations. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a low-complexity tool.
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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the verdict's relativity, which clarifies output semantics, but does not further elaborate on parameter meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'site' is jargon).
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 that the tool provides search volume, difficulty, and a relative verdict for given keywords. It distinguishes itself by specifying that the verdict is relative to the site's existing difficulty, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
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 description implies usage for evaluating specific keywords for a site but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like competitor_gap or query_match. No when-not-to-use instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
page_yieldPage yieldBInspect
Which of your pages are dead, why, and which to fix first. Splits pages into no_demand, title_not_earning and ranking_too_low, then orders the fix list by recoverable clicks using the site's own click-through curve rather than borrowed industry averages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window, 7 to 180. Defaults to 90. | |
| site | Yes | Search Console property |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool splits pages into categories and orders by recoverable clicks using the site's own curve, but does not clarify what 'dead' means or any 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?
Two sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. No wasted words, though the phrase 'which of your pages are dead' could be more precise.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the output categories and ordering logic. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.
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 100%, so the parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the overall context, meeting baseline expectations.
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 clearly states the tool identifies dead pages, categorizes them into three types, and prioritizes fixes using site-specific data. It is specific about verbs and resources but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
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 this tool versus alternatives like backlink_profile or serp_position. The description implies usage for page-level health analysis but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
query_matchQuery matchBInspect
Which queries are one step away, and which were never yours. Returns queries stuck at ranks 11-20 with real volume, queries you rank well for but nobody clicks (intent mismatch), and queries several of your pages compete for without earning clicks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window, 7 to 180 | |
| site | Yes | Search Console property |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes the output content but fails to mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or pagination. The tool is read-only but this is not confirmed, leaving behavioral transparency weak.
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?
Two sentences with little waste. The first sentence is somewhat poetic but quickly leads into specific details. Every part adds value, though the opening could be more direct.
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 moderate complexity, the description covers the main output categories but omits format details, permissions, or limitations. For a query tool, it is adequate but not thorough.
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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not explain how parameters affect results.
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 identifies queries that are close to top 10, have intent mismatch, or compete internally. It uses specific verbs like 'returns' and lists three concrete categories, distinguishing it from siblings like keyword_volume or serp_position.
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 description implicitly suggests use cases (finding rank-improvement opportunities, fixing intent mismatch, reducing cannibalization) but doesn't explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use the tool. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
serp_positionSERP positionAInspect
For queries you name: who is on the results page, where you sit among them, and which domains are consistently above you.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Search Console property | |
| keywords | Yes | Up to 10 queries |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description outlines what is returned (position, domains above) but omits behavioral traits like data freshness, error handling (e.g., invalid keywords), or rate limits. No annotations to supplement, so description carries full burden and falls short.
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 that is front-loaded and informative. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy.
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 no output schema, the description does not explain return format or pagination. With only 2 well-documented parameters, coverage is acceptable but could benefit from more detail on how results are delivered or ordered.
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 documents both parameters (site, keywords) with descriptions. Description adds context by connecting parameters to the tool's output, but no extra syntax or format guidance. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 is specific: it names the resource (SERP position for queries) and three distinct outputs (who is on the page, user's position, domains above). This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like competitor_gap or index_coverage.
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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. Usage is implied ('for queries you name') but no mention of when to prefer this over competitors like competitor_gap or query_match. Lacks exclusions.
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!