Get an SEO checklist. Types: general, blog, ecommerce, discover, backlink, all. Available in English and German. Free - no API key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | Language (en or de) | en |
| checklist_type | No | Checklist type | general |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior (free, no API key), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or if any side effects occur. It adds some value but not comprehensive transparency.
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 extremely concise with two sentences, no fluff, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers input options and access, but does not describe the output format or content of the checklist, leaving some ambiguity.
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% and both parameters have enums with descriptions. The description merely restates the available options without adding new meaning, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Get an SEO checklist' with specific verb and resource. It lists available types, but does not differentiate from sibling tool 'seo_guidance', which may overlap. Hence not a 5.
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 mentions it is free and requires no API key, providing clear usage context. However, it does not give explicit when-not or alternative recommendations, stopping short of a 5.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
