page_yieldWhich 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 |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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).