Skip to main content
Glama

SEOPro AI

by io.github.alpha-ai-labs

Generate SEO Article

generate_article

Start generating an SEO article for a target keyword. Returns immediately; generation takes 5-10 minutes in the background — poll get_article_status for the scheduled_date until it shows a blog.

scheduled_date is YYYY-MM-DD and defaults to today (UTC). One article is
generated per website per date; if that date already has an article the
existing blog_id is returned. Counts toward the plan's monthly limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNo
keywordYes
website_idYes
scheduled_dateNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say all hints are false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses asynchronous background execution, 5-10 minute wait, polling requirement, dedupe behavior returning the existing blog_id, and quota consumption. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Compact and well-structured: action and async return first, then date/dedupe semantics, then quota impact. Every sentence carries operational value with no filler.

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?

Covers the async lifecycle, polling target, dupe behavior, and plan limit. With no output schema, a minor gap is that for a non-dupe generation it doesn't explicitly state what the immediate response value contains beyond 'returns immediately.'

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description meaningfully expands scheduled_date (format, default, uniqueness per website/date) and keyword (target keyword). It does not explicitly explain the optional topic parameter, though the schema title and optionality make it low-risk.

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 + resource: 'Start generating an SEO article for a target keyword.' It also disambiguates itself from get_article_status by positioning this tool as the initiator of background generation rather than the status checker.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear context: use this to kick off generation, then poll get_article_status until a blog appears. It also explains the one-article-per-website-per-date rule and the monthly limit, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like publish_article or list_articles.

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

All SEOPro AI toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, making selection straightforward. Minor overlap exists between get_ai_search_traffic and get_search_performance's AI-assistant traffic section, and among the three search-performance reporting tools, but descriptions are clear enough to avoid major confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_, generate_, get_, list_, publish_, request_, run_. The verbs are descriptive and every noun object clearly identifies the resource being acted on.

Tool Count4/5

At 18 tools the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but the scope is broad enough to justify it: website management, article generation, publishing, search analytics, AI search, indexing, backlinks, and auditing. No tool feels redundant enough to remove.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the main SEO lifecycle well: websites, keyword plans, articles, publishing, search performance, indexing, backlinks, and audits. Obvious gaps are article update/delete operations and website removal, but agents can work around these for most core workflows.

Resources