Professional SEO auditing: 15 tools, 9 checks, CWV, E-E-A-T, schema, GEO. Free tier.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.2/5 across 15 of 15 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
Each tool targets a distinct SEO dimension or lifecycle stage. The check_* tools focus on specific aspects (meta, schema, performance, etc.), while audit, crawl, and status tools are separated by scope and sync/async nature. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (seo_check_*, seo_crawl_*, seo_generate_schema), but there are exceptions like seo_competitor_check (noun_verb), seo_audit_status (noun_noun), and seo_history/seo_usage (bare nouns). The consistent 'seo_' prefix helps, but inconsistent verb positioning makes the set less predictable.
With 15 tools, the set is comprehensive yet not bloated. Each tool provides a distinct capability from individual checks to async audits, crawling, competitor analysis, and account status. The count is well-suited for a full-featured SEO audit server.
The tool surface covers the core audit lifecycle: individual checks, quick audit, deep audit with status polling, site crawl with status, historical records, and usage. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit ranking tool (though competitor check addresses part) and no tool to cancel an audit, but these are not critical for the intended purpose.
seo_audit_statusBInspectCheck the progress and results of an async deep audit job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It discloses the async nature but doesn't state whether it's read-only, how polling should proceed, or what error conditions may occur.
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, direct sentence with no superfluous content. It is appropriately sized for the purpose it states.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, polling semantics, or how this fits into the deep audit workflow.
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 description does not mention job_id at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameter's role or how to obtain it.
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 the tool checks progress/results of an async deep audit job, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like seo_crawl_status by specifying 'deep audit'.
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 after launching an async deep audit, but does not explicitly differentiate from seo_crawl_status or mention any alternatives. No exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
seo_check_contentCInspectE-E-A-T and content quality analysis powered by AI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'powered by AI' but does not disclose what the analysis outputs, whether it is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or limitations. The agent gets no insight into side effects or expected behavior.
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 concise sentence with no redundant wording. However, it is under-specified and omits key details, so while it is not verbose, it does not fully earn its place as a complete tool description.
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 tool with one URL parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not describe the return value, how to interpret results, or any behavioral expectations. Considering the large sibling set, the description gives insufficient context for reliable selection and invocation.
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 must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not mention the URL parameter at all. The schema's 'url' name and 'uri' format are self-explanatory, yet the description adds no context about what kind of URL should be provided or how it is used.
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 states a specific function: E-E-A-T and content quality analysis. This goes beyond a tautology and identifies the resource (content) and the type of analysis (E-E-A-T, quality). However, it does not explicitly differentiate among sibling SEO tools like seo_check_meta or seo_quick_audit.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context for appropriate scenarios, and no exclusions. The description neither explains when this tool is preferred nor mentions any preconditions, making it minimally useful for selection decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
seo_check_geoCInspectAI search readiness: crawler access, llms.txt, passage citability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions what areas are checked but does not explain side effects, permissions, network access, return format, or whether this is a read-only operation. The agent is left guessing about the tool's runtime behavior.
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 very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It is a fragment listing three items without a complete sentence, which limits clarity. It does not waste words, but it also fails to provide enough structure to be genuinely concise.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a low-complexity tool, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the tool returns, how results are presented, or the exact scope of 'passage citability'. The agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based on the given information.
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 provides minimal information (a required url with format uri). The description adds context that the url is the target for AI search readiness checks, but it does not explicitly describe the parameter or its expected values. Some meaning is added beyond the schema, but it is minimal.
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 states the tool covers 'AI search readiness' and lists specific check areas (crawler access, llms.txt, passage citability), but it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling SEO check tools. It is not a tautology, but the purpose is only implied by the tool name.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools like seo_check_content or seo_check_meta, leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
seo_check_localCInspectLocal SEO signals: NAP consistency, LocalBusiness schema, GBP indicators.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It provides none: no mention of read-only/check nature, rate limits, required permissions, return formats, or side effects. It is only a list of topics.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using a scannable colon-separated list. Every word contributes, but it is under-specified, which prevents a perfect score.
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, no annotations, and a telegraphic description, the agent lacks essential context about what the tool returns or how it behaves. The description is too sparse for a tool with 14 siblings, leaving ambiguity about scope and expected results.
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 sole parameter url has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention it. The description fails to clarify what URL should be supplied (e.g., homepage vs. page) or how the parameter relates to the listed signals, leaving the agent to guess.
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 identifies the subject (local SEO signals) and lists concrete components (NAP consistency, LocalBusiness schema, GBP indicators), distinguishing it from sibling tools like seo_check_meta or seo_check_schema. However, it lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name 'check' for action, so it stops short of a full purpose statement.
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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely lists signals, implying a local SEO focus, but does not state scenarios (e.g., 'use for local business pages') or exclude other tools like seo_check_geo.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
seo_check_metaCInspectCheck title, meta description, OG tags, canonical, and robots directives.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Check' implies a read-only inspection, but it does not state what the tool returns, how it handles errors, or any other behavioral traits. It lacks information on output format, auth requirements, or failure modes.
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, concise sentence with no filler, leading with the verb and listing concrete items. It is efficient and front-loaded, though slightly terse, earning a high but not perfect score.
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?
Given only one parameter and no output schema, the description should explain the expected return value or usage context, but it only lists the checks. It also lacks any usage guidance or differentiation from sibling tools, making it incomplete for an agent selecting among 14 SEO tools.
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 input schema has one parameter 'url' with zero description coverage (0%), and the description does not explicitly mention the URL parameter or explain how it is used. While the context implies the URL is the target of the check, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic detail, adding minimal value beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and enumerates the exact elements inspected (title, meta description, OG tags, canonical, robots directives), making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like seo_check_content or seo_check_schema, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or siblings. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
seo_check_performanceCInspectCore Web Vitals analysis via Google PageSpeed Insights.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| strategy | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'analysis' without indicating whether the tool is read-only, if it makes external API calls, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what side effects (if any) exist. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a tool that invokes an external service.
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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and method, making optimal use of words.
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?
Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention what the analysis returns (e.g., metric scores, diagnostics), possible limitations, or how the 'strategy' parameter affects results. The description covers only the basic purpose, leaving substantial context missing for correct invocation and interpretation.
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%, and the description does not mention or elaborate on the 'url' or 'strategy' parameters. While the schema defines the enum for strategy, the description adds no meaning to these parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them correctly beyond raw schema names.
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 the tool performs Core Web Vitals analysis via Google PageSpeed Insights, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling SEO check tools by focusing on performance metrics, though it does not explicitly name alternative 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 purpose is clear enough to imply when to use the tool (when Core Web Vitals/performance analysis is needed), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like seo_quick_audit or seo_deep_audit. No exclusion criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
seo_check_schemaAInspectDetect and validate JSON-LD structured data on a page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Detect and validate' without revealing fetch behavior, validation criteria, response format, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about what happens after invocation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It uses parallel verbs 'Detect and validate' and clearly states the object, making it efficient and well-structured.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It doesn't explain what 'validate' entails or what the tool returns, leaving some ambiguity. More detail about the validation process or return state would enhance completeness.
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 one 'url' parameter with zero description coverage. The description mentions 'on a page', which hints at the parameter's purpose, but it doesn't explain URL handling or constraints beyond the schema's uri format. In this case, the single parameter is self-explanatory, so the description adds marginal value.
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 uses the specific verb 'Detect and validate' with a clear resource 'JSON-LD structured data on a page'. This distinguishes it from sibling SEO check tools that target content, meta, or performance, making the purpose highly clear.
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?
Usage is implied by the explicit mention of JSON-LD, but the description provides no explicit context for when to choose this tool over alternatives like seo_check_meta or seo_check_content. There are no stated exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
seo_competitor_checkBInspectSERP competitor analysis. Shows where you rank for a keyword, top competitors, and on-page comparison. Requires Agency plan or higher.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| keyword | Yes | ||
| language | No | ||
| location | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions the Agency plan requirement, which is useful, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, data freshness, pagination, or error behavior. For a tool that likely performs a read operation, this lack of transparency is a notable gap.
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?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every word contributes to the core purpose and access requirement. No fluff or redundancy.
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?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain how results are returned, what 'on-page comparison' includes, or how language/location affect the output. The tool's complexity warrants more detail than provided.
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 must explain parameters. It only explains 'keyword' (the rank target) but leaves 'url', 'language', and 'location' unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's basic types and constraints.
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?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs and resources: 'SERP competitor analysis' and 'Shows where you rank for a keyword, top competitors, and on-page comparison.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_check_content or seo_quick_audit.
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?
Usage is implied by the description (for SERP competitor analysis), but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The description does not say what distinguishes it from related audit tools or when it should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
seo_crawl_siteBInspectCrawl a website via BFS, check SEO on every page, and return site-wide analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| max_pages | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the BFS traversal method and the return of site-wide analysis, which are useful behavioral details. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, robots.txt handling, or limitations of the crawl.
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, direct sentence that immediately explains the tool's purpose without any filler or redundant information.
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 no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values and parameter behavior. It also does not clarify differences from seo_crawl_status, making the overall context incomplete for a 2-parameter 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'url' or 'max_pages' parameters. Since the schema itself lacks descriptions, the tool description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics entirely unclear.
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 the tool's function: crawling a website via BFS and performing SEO checks on every page. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are focused on individual checks (e.g., seo_check_meta) or status (seo_crawl_status), making it the only site-wide crawler.
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 full-site SEO analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like seo_quick_audit or seo_deep_audit. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
seo_crawl_statusBInspectCheck the progress and results of a site crawl job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Check,' which implies read-only but does not explain whether the tool polls for completion, what exactly 'results' includes, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Check' and directly states the purpose. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately minimal for a simple status-checking tool.
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?
The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain what 'progress and results' mean, the format of returned data, or that the job_id comes from a prior crawl initiation. This is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 0% description coverage for job_id, and the description does not mention job_id at all. It fails to explain what job_id refers to or where to obtain it, providing no compensatory meaning for the parameter beyond the schema's basic UUID type.
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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource as 'progress and results of a site crawl job,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like seo_crawl_site (which initiates) and seo_audit_status (which checks audit status). It is unambiguous and exactly names what the tool does.
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 the tool is for checking crawl job status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like obtaining a job_id from seo_crawl_site. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
seo_deep_auditAInspectFull multi-agent SEO audit (async). Returns a job_id to poll with seo_audit_status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Though no annotations are provided, the description discloses the key asynchronous behavior and the job_id return pattern, which is vital for an agent to use the tool correctly. It does not cover other details like cost orerror handling, but the most essential non-obvious behavior is clearly stated.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediate next step (polling). Every phrase provides useful information without redundancy, making it extremely compact and efficient.
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?
The description covers the essential workflow: initiate a full audit, receive a job_id, and poll with seo_audit_status. It omits extra context like audit scope details, but the sibling tool names and the explicit job_id mention give the agent enough to proceed. For a kick-off tool, this is fairly complete.
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 input schema has a single required url parameter with a URI format, but the description does not mention or elaborate on this parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 identifies the tool as a full multi-agent SEO audit, with the verb 'audit' and a specific scope. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by mentioning 'full' and 'async', setting it apart from lighter alternatives like seo_quick_audit.
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 the tool is for comprehensive SEO audits and provides follow-up guidance by naming seo_audit_status as the polling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over seo_quick_audit or any other alternative, leaving the use-case comparison implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
seo_generate_schemaCInspectGenerate appropriate JSON-LD structured data for a page using AI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| type | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool generates JSON-LD via AI but does not mention whether it returns the generated markup, modifies the page, requires authentication, or any side effects. The absence of any behavioral traits beyond the core action is a significant gap.
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 sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, it is overly terse and lacks essential details, so while it is concise, it is under-specified. It earns a middle score: not verbose, but not adequately informative.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should cover what the tool outputs, when to use it, and parameter semantics. It only states the basic purpose, leaving out return value format, expected usage context, and parameter behavior. The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain that 'url' is the target page or that 'type' can specify the schema type. With two undocumented parameters, the description entirely fails to compensate for the lack of schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('JSON-LD structured data') for a page using AI. It clearly distinguishes this generation tool from sibling tools like seo_check_schema, which checks existing schema rather than creating it. The phrase 'using AI' adds a clear method indicator.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that seo_check_schema should be used for validation, nor does it indicate context like 'when you need to add structured data to a page.' There is no exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
seo_historyAInspectView your past audit results. List recent audits or retrieve a specific audit by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| action | No | list | |
| audit_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only intent through the verb 'view' and enumerates the two possible actions (list/get). However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid audit_id), default limit behavior, or any side effects—though for a history viewer, side effects are unlikely. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail, warranting a 3.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('View your past audit results') and then detailing the two modes. No wasted words, entirely focused on what the agent needs to know for selection and initial invocation.
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 no annotations, the description should provide more context. It explains the tool's purpose and the two actions, but omits the meaning of 'limit' and what the returned data looks like (e.g., audit summaries vs. full details). For a simple tool this might be sufficient, but there are clear gaps that could confuse an agent invoking it correctly, so a 3 fits.
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 must compensate. It explains two of three parameters: 'action' (via 'List recent audits or retrieve a specific audit by ID') and 'audit_id' (the specific audit). The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its effect on listing unclear. The schema provides default/min/max, but the description adds no meaning for limit. This partial compensation earns a 3.
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 the tool's function: 'View your past audit results.' It also specifies two modes—'List recent audits or retrieve a specific audit by ID'—which distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_audit_status or seo_crawl_status that focus on current statuses. The verb 'view' and the resource 'past audit results' are specific and unambiguous.
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 provides clear context: use this tool to view historical audit data rather than current status (which sibling tools seo_audit_status and seo_crawl_status likely cover). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the phrasing 'past audit results' implies a historical scope. This is slightly above the 'implied usage' level, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
seo_quick_auditAInspectQuick SEO audit of a single page. Returns score, top issues, and actionable fixes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses what the tool returns (score, issues, fixes) but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or has any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. An explicit 'read-only' statement or note about external requests would improve transparency, but the current output-focused phrasing gives partial insight.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists key outputs. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous information.
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 simple, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, its scope, and what it returns. It could mention limitations or when to prefer alternatives, but given the low complexity and sibling context, it is nearly complete.
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%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'url' parameter beyond the schema's type and format. The description could mention that the URL should be the full page URL, but it does not. With low coverage and no compensatory detail, the parameter semantics are under-specified.
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 the tool performs a 'Quick SEO audit of a single page' and lists specific outputs: 'score, top issues, and actionable fixes.' This verb+resource+output combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_deep_audit (more comprehensive) and seo_crawl_site (whole site), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 phrase 'Quick' and 'single page' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: a fast, focused audit of one URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names (e.g., seo_deep_audit, seo_crawl_site) imply those are for other scenarios. This is clear context without formal exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
seo_usageAInspectCheck remaining audit credits and current plan status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Check') with no side effects, which is transparent for a simple status tool. It lacks details like authentication or return format, but these are not critical for a no-parameter read operation.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists the two key outputs. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema, single purpose), the description is practically complete. It conveys exactly what the tool does. Minor gap: it does not describe the format of the returned credit/plan info, but this is not essential for a status check.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, there is nothing to explain, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist.
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 'Check remaining audit credits and current plan status' with a specific verb ('Check') and two concrete resources (audit credits and plan status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_audit_status, which focuses on audit status rather than usage.
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 checking credits and plan status, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like seo_audit_status or seo_history. The context of 'usage' is implicit, not stated as a precondition or alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.