run_seo_auditRun a technical SEO audit on any URL: meta tags, headings, images, links, performance, content quality, security and social metadata, with a scored result. Rate-limited for free accounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no positive safety hints, so the description's disclosure of rate limiting for free accounts, the list of audit areas, and the scored result add meaningful behavioral context. It does not describe side effects or authentication requirements, but for an audit tool this is reasonably transparent.
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?
A single dense sentence front-loads the action and target, then lists important scope categories and a usage constraint. No filler or redundant repetition of the title.
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?
With no output schema and weak annotations, the description should explain more about the return value than 'scored result' and should clarify rate limit implications. It covers the main audit scope well but leaves response structure and error behavior unstated.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It identifies the URL as an unconstrained target ('any URL'), but does not specify expected format such as protocol, trailing paths, or validation rules. This is minimal but adequate for a single string parameter.
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 names a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('technical SEO audit') and distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing 'any URL' and listing concrete audit categories. This makes it easy to separate from get_* tools and content generation tools.
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 intended use is implied: use this when you need a broad technical SEO audit of a URL. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it compared to the get_* siblings.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.