Get SEO best practices on a topic. Topics: title_tags, meta_descriptions, heading_structure, internal_linking, core_web_vitals, eeat, keyword_research, schema_markup, image_optimization, local_seo. Use topic='list' for all. Free - no API key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | SEO topic or 'list' for all topics |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description discloses non-destructive nature and no authentication needed, but doesn't detail return format or result behavior. Adequate for an informational read-only 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 clear sentences, front-loaded with verb and topic list. No wasted words.
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's simplicity (one required param, no output schema), the description is complete: lists topics, explains usage, notes free and no API key.
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 covers 100% of parameter. Description adds value by enumerating valid topic values and emphasizing 'list' to get all topics, which goes beyond the schema's generic description.
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 it provides SEO best practices on a topic, lists 10 specific topics, and explains the special 'list' value. Differentiates from siblings like analyze_url_structure and seo_checklist.
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?
Provides explicit usage context: get SEO best practices on a topic, use 'list' for all, free and no API key. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is sufficient for simple tool.
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.
