gapup-mcp

seo_cro_audit

Read-only

Full SEO + CRO audit of any public URL. Analyses technical SEO (HTTP status, HTTPS, title/meta/canonical/robots, H1-H2, JSON-LD structured data, sitemap, robots.txt, OG/Twitter cards), content SEO (word count, keyword density top-10, readability estimate, image alt coverage, internal/external links), performance signals (page size, estimated render time, inline scripts/styles, unoptimised images), and CRO (CTA detection, above-fold CTAs, forms, social proof, trust signals, pricing visibility). Optionally compares up to 5 competitor URLs. Returns 0-100 scores per dimension plus a prioritised (P0/P1/P2) recommendation list. ICP: marketing managers, SEO/CRO consultants, e-commerce ops, agency teams. Budget: 8s per URL. Cache TTL: 1h.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Fully-qualified URL to audit (e.g. https://stripe.com/pricing)
`mode`	No	Audit scope — defaults to 'full'
`async`	No	If true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
`compare_competitors`	No	Optional list of competitor URLs to compare (max 5)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`sources`	Yes
`audit_modes`	Yes
`content_seo`	Yes
`cro_signals`	Yes
`quality_score`	Yes
`technical_seo`	Yes
`overall_scores`	Yes
`recommendations`	Yes
`performance_signals`	Yes
`competitor_comparison`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and description aligns (no contradiction). Adds valuable behavioral details: async support, budget of 8s per URL, cache TTL of 1h, and return structure (0-100 scores with prioritised recommendations).

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?

Description is front-loaded with main purpose and structured into clear categories. Each sentence adds value, though it is relatively long. Could be slightly trimmed without losing information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, output schema exists), the description is thorough: covers all audit dimensions, output format, operational constraints (budget, cache), target audience, and optional features. No major gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description provides context for the url parameter (what the audit covers) and mentions optional competitor comparison, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Full SEO + CRO audit of any public URL' with detailed breakdown of technical, content, performance, and CRO aspects. Distinguishes from sibling tools like seo_keyword_research and competitive_deep_dive by being a comprehensive audit covering both SEO and CRO.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly identifies target ICP (marketing managers, SEO/CRO consultants, e-commerce ops, agency teams) and optional competitor comparison. Provides clear context for use, though lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements or alternatives beyond the implicit differentiation from siblings.

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

All gapup-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

With 271 tools, many have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple competitor intel tools, multiple financial modelers, multiple ESG auditors). Detailed descriptions help slightly, but the sheer volume creates confusion. Agents would struggle to select the right tool among many similar options.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names are wildly inconsistent: mix of English and French, snake_case and short phrases, some very generic (process, run, execute equivalents). No discernible naming convention (e.g., abm_architect vs. boundary_control vs. bp_narratif). This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

271 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). This indicates an unfocused, over-bloated tool surface. Even for a general business intelligence server, this number is excessive and violates the principle of each tool earning its place.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large count, coverage feels scattered. Some domains (e.g., content, competitive intel) have many tools, while others (e.g., supply chain, HR) have gaps. The set lacks a coherent scope; it seems like a dump of many separate tool collections rather than a complete, curated surface.

Resources

Need Help?