Full real-time SEO audit for a URL: title/description with length checks, canonical, robots meta, OG tags, Twitter cards, JSON-LD, hreflang, headings, images missing alt, link counts, word count
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint safety. The description adds 'real-time' as a behavioral trait, indicating live data fetching. No contradictions with annotations; the description enriches the safety profile with a timing characteristic.
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 a single, information-dense sentence with a clear front-loaded purpose and a comma-separated list of checks. It avoids fluff, though the list is long. The structure is effective for scanning.
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?
For a read-only audit tool with no output schema, the description lists the audit components comprehensively. The sibling tool set provides context, and annotations confirm safety. However, it does not describe the output format or any rate limits or credit usage, which would improve completeness for a complex multi-check tool.
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?
The schema has only one parameter 'url' with type string and no description. The description says 'for a URL' but does not specify expected format (e.g., protocol, encoding, or whether it accepts full URLs). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to provide meaningful parameter guidance.
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 this tool performs a full real-time SEO audit for a URL, listing specific elements (title, meta, OG tags, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_schema_markup or get_page_performance by covering a comprehensive audit scope.
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 implies usage for comprehensive SEO audits but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or exclusions. The word 'Full' hints at its role as a one-stop audit tool, but explicit comparisons are absent.
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.
The tool set is largely well-disambiguated with clear prefixes (get_, outreach_, zeekeo_) and detailed descriptions for each tool. Some tools like get_site_explorer and get_site_health could be confused at a glance, but their descriptions clearly separate their purposes. Overall, the naming and descriptions prevent meaningful ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent get_ prefix for data retrieval, with sub-prefixes like get_gsc_, get_page_, and outreach_/zeekeo_ for distinct workflows. There is no mixing of naming conventions (e.g., camelCase) or inconsistent verb usage. The naming pattern is uniform and predictable.
With 63 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical 3-15 tool scope, categorizing as an extreme overflow. Even for a comprehensive SEO and outreach suite, the sheer number is overwhelming and likely includes redundant or overlapping functionality. This would be confusing for agents and users alike.
The tool set covers a wide range of SEO, backlink analysis, Google Search Console data, and outreach workflows, appearing nearly complete for its stated purpose. However, several tools are marked as 'v1 stub' (e.g., get_internal_links, get_schema_markup), indicating incomplete functionality. Despite these gaps, the overall coverage is extensive and well-rounded.
