Extract and validate JSON-LD structured data (schema.org) from a page. Checks JSON validity and flags missing recommended fields for common types (Article, Product, Organization, WebSite, BreadcrumbList, FAQPage, LocalBusiness).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Full page URL to check for structured data. |
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. It explains exactly what the tool does: checks JSON validity and flags missing recommended fields for common schema.org types. It does not detail edge cases like pages with no JSON-LD, but for a simple one-parameter tool this is sufficient and not misleading.
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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence specifies what validation entails. Every sentence contributes useful information, making this an example of efficient, focused writing.
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 straightforward tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is thorough: it states the input, the action, and the validation scope. It doesn't describe the output format, but that is relatively minor given the simplicity of the tool and the clarity of its intended 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the only parameter 'url' described as 'Full page URL to check for structured data.' The description's 'from a page' aligns with this but adds no new parameter details or syntax guidance. With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb and resource: 'Extract and validate JSON-LD structured data (schema.org) from a page.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling SEO tools like site_audit or core_web_vitals, which focus on different concerns. The purpose is explicit 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to validate JSON-LD structured data on a page. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear and the sibling tools are all distinct enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case without confusion.
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 distinct actions, but backlinks_for_domain and top_linkers_for_domain overlap significantly since both return ranked linking domains with authority and link counts, differing mainly in scope. The descriptions do clarify one is a full payload and the other a quick skim, so an agent can usually choose correctly.
All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but conventions are mixed: several are noun phrases like site_audit and domain_authority_score, some are verb-first like find_link_prospects, and a couple are object-verb like schema_validate and indexnow_submit. The set is understandable but lacks a single consistent naming pattern.
13 tools is appropriate for a backlink and SEO-focused server, fitting comfortably in the well-scoped range. Each area—backlink analysis, AI visibility, site auditing, and indexing—has dedicated tools without the set feeling bloated.
The backlink workflow is well covered: scoring, listing, overlapping linkers, prospect discovery, toxic-link flags, and live verification all exist. Minor gaps remain, such as no per-URL or anchor-level backlink data and no rank-tracking or keyword research, but the core stated purpose is served without major dead ends.