get_google_guidelines
Get official Google Search developer guidelines by category. Free.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | list |
Visibly AI — SEO MCP Server
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what the tool returns, how the 'category' parameter affects behavior, or what happens if no category is provided. The default 'list' behavior is not mentioned, leaving the agent guessing.
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 description is very brief and front-loaded, but the second sentence 'Free.' is unnecessary and does not contribute to tool selection. Despite that, it is not verbose and gets the core message across quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple with one optional parameter, the description is still incomplete because it fails to explain the default category behavior and valid inputs. The lack of output schema and insufficient parameter semantics make it hard for an agent to use correctly without further assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'category' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaningful semantics. It only repeats 'by category' without explaining valid values, the default 'list', or expected return format. This is a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving official Google Search developer guidelines. It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'official Google Search developer guidelines', and the scope 'by category', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_guidance or seo_checklist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It only says 'Free', which is a feature, not usage context. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct: analyze_url_structure and classify_keywords_simple perform concrete analyses, while get_google_guidelines, seo_guidance, seo_checklist, get_skill, and list_locations serve different informational purposes. However, seo_guidance, seo_checklist, and get_google_guidelines could be somewhat confused as all provide SEO advice in different forms.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming mixes verb_noun patterns (analyze_url_structure, get_google_guidelines, list_locations) with noun-only names (seo_checklist, seo_guidance). The 'seo_' prefix is used inconsistently, and 'classify_keywords_simple' includes an extraneous modifier. While readable, the pattern is not uniform.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is a well-scoped number for a server focused on SEO guidance and analysis. Each tool covers a distinct aspect, and this count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
Completeness3/5
The server provides solid coverage of SEO guidance and reference material but lacks broader analysis tools (e.g., on-page content analysis, backlink checks, ranking queries). The presence of list_locations hints at integration with other data tools that are not included, leaving noticeable gaps in a fully functional SEO toolkit.