Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SEO Score API

by io.github.SeoScoreAPI
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

SEO Audit (score + fixes)

audit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a full SEO audit on a URL. Returns score (0-100), letter grade, category breakdowns (meta, technical, social, performance, accessibility), AI readability score, SXO/AEO/AIO scores (paid plans), and a prioritized list of fixes. Usually returns in seconds. Free tier: 20 audits a month. Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS) are not measured unless include_core_web_vitals is true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to audit. Must include the protocol (https://...).
include_core_web_vitalsNoAlso measure Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS, FCP, TTFB) with Google PageSpeed Insights and return them under core_web_vitals. Adds about 10 seconds the first time a URL is measured (cached 24 hours). Needs an API key. Leave off unless the user asks about page speed or Core Web Vitals.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gradeNoLetter grade A+ to F.
scoreNoOverall SEO score 0-100.
categoriesNoPer-category scores (meta, technical, social, performance, accessibility).
prioritiesNoPrioritized fixes, most important first. Each has the issue, a plain_english explanation and who_fixes_it.
ai_readabilityNoAI readability score and findings.
core_web_vitalsNoPresent when include_core_web_vitals is true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing the return payload (score, letter grade, category breakdowns, AI readability, SXO/AEO/AIO gated to paid plans), typical latency ('usually returns in seconds'), a quota ('Free tier: 20 audits a month'), and a measurement caveat that Core Web Vitals are absent unless a flag is set. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before calling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, all front-loaded with the action and the result before the caveats. Nothing is redundant or padded; the latency, quota, and Core Web Vitals sentences each carry a distinct fact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter audit tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is the lack of signposting toward more specialized siblings, which an agent would need to choose correctly among the many audit variants.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the URL protocol requirement and the include_core_web_vitals cost, caching, and API-key behavior, so the baseline applies. The description's mention of the Core Web Vitals caveat overlaps rather than extends what the schema says.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a full SEO audit on a URL') and enumerates what the result contains, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings that also analyze a URL, such as accessibility_audit or deep_audit, so the agent must infer which audit tool fits.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: this is the general-purpose audit, as opposed to the more specialized siblings, which the description never names. The one explicit steering ('leave off unless the user asks about page speed') applies to a parameter and lives in the schema, not in the description, and no when-not-to-use case is given.

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

All SEO Score API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources