seo_crawl_site
Crawl a website via BFS, check SEO on every page, and return site-wide analysis.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| max_pages | No |
SEO Audit MCP Server
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters1/5
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.
Purpose5/5
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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency3/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.