SEO Score API

Conversion Score

conversion

Read-onlyIdempotent

Score how well a page turns a visitor into a lead or a sale: headline, call to action, trust, forms and objections, each 0-100, with a prioritized fix list. It does not measure the actual conversion rate. Counts as one audit. Free keys get the scores and the first two priorities; paid plans get the full list.

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": "conversion"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Full page URL including the protocol, e.g. https://example.com/pricing.
`page_type`	No	Detected from the page when omitted.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`categories`	No	headline, cta, trust, forms, objections: 0-100 each.
`priorities`	No	Prioritized fixes, most important first. Each has the issue, a plain_english explanation and who_fixes_it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds two behaviors the annotations cannot convey: it consumes one audit credit, and free-tier keys receive only the scores plus the first two priorities while paid plans get the full list. That result-gating materially changes how an agent should present output.

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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded: what is scored first, the limitation second, cost and tier gating last. No redundant restatement of the title or name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be spelled out, yet the description still frames the output (per-dimension 0-100 scores plus a prioritized fix list) and discloses credit cost and tier-truncated results. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or set expectations is missing.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the page_type enum with its 'detected from the page when omitted' default. The description only refers to 'a page' generically and adds no format or override guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Score how well a page turns a visitor into a lead or a sale') and enumerates the scored dimensions (headline, CTA, trust, forms, objections) with the 0-100 scale. It also rules out a plausible misreading — 'It does not measure the actual conversion rate' — which cleanly separates it from analytics-style siblings such as history or audit.

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 implied by the scope ('score how well a page converts'), and the negative clause excludes one wrong expectation, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings like audit, deep_audit, or accessibility_audit. 'Counts as one audit' is a billing fact, not routing guidance.

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 tools Inspect

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.