seo_deep_audit
Full multi-agent SEO audit (async). Returns a job_id to poll with seo_audit_status.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
SEO Audit MCP Server
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.
Parameters2/5
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.
Purpose5/5
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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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.
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.