Skip to main content
Glama

webbersites-x402-data-api

by io.github.webberdesign

get_seo_full_audit

Read-onlyIdempotent

FULL on-page audit bundle — seven analyses in one call against a single URL: head/meta SEO audit, alt-text check, social-card check with og:image verification, internal-link analysis, WCAG accessibility check (choose level), schema.org structured-data audit, and a robots/llms.txt crawler summary. Returns a transparent 0-100 score with itemized deductions plus every full sub-report. Pieces individually total ~$0.02; the bundle adds the unified score free. ($0.02 per call, paid via x402)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic URL of the page to audit
levelNoWCAG level for the accessibility section: A, AA (default), or AAA

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gradeNo
scoreNo
sectionsNo
deductionsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds that it returns a 0-100 score with itemized deductions, full sub-reports, and pricing ($0.02 per call). No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences long, packing detailed information about the seven analyses and pricing. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (seven analyses), the description covers all components, the score, pricing, and output structure. With 100% schema coverage and output schema present, it is fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'url' and 'level'. The description adds context about the bundle and the score being free, enhancing meaning beyond the schema.

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 it's a full on-page audit bundle with seven specific analyses against a single URL. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_seo_head_check by being a comprehensive all-in-one call.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for a thorough audit, noting that individual pieces cost separately. It doesn't exclude any scenarios or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear enough for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All webbersites-x402-data-api toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the SEO-related tools (head_check, full_audit, site_audit, etc.) overlap in scope, potentially causing confusion despite clear descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a get_/post_/delete_ verb pattern with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., get_seo_head_check, post_store_collection), with no mixing of naming conventions.

Tool Count2/5

With 46 tools covering a wide breadth of domains (SEO, accessibility, music, crypto, linting, etc.), the count is excessive for a single server, feeling unfocused and heavy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most core operations for each sub-domain, but minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for datastore, limited music operations).

Resources