SERP 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
