Free check of one site for orphan pages, broken internal links and sitemap problems.
Scored across 1 tool
There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another. Its purpose (internal link auditing for a single site) is stated explicitly and narrowly.
The single name check_site_internal_links follows a clear snake_case verb_noun convention. With one tool, there are no competing conventions to break consistency.
One tool is too thin for a server branded as a full SEO site audit; the surface is essentially a single narrow checker. The rubric treats a single tool as an extreme under-scope unless the domain is truly atomic, which an 'SEO audit' is not.
The tool covers only internal link issues (orphans, broken links, sitemap failures, weak links) and explicitly excludes backlinks, keywords, page speed, and rankings. For a server named 'SEO Site Audit,' these are significant gaps that will leave users without the audit operations the name implies.
Use this when someone asks you to check the internal links of one specific public website they run or have permission to check: pages that nothing links to (orphan pages), broken internal links, sitemap entries that redirect or fail, and weakly linked pages. Send one website address per call, for example "example.com". The check reads a small sample of that site (a page limit applies, and the answer says whether every linked page was reached), follows its robots.txt, pauses between requests, and takes up to about half a minute. Returns up to 5 rows with a summary and up to 5 example addresses per kind of finding, the time of the check, and a link to the free web tool. Findings are leads to verify, not a ranking or traffic prediction. Do not use it for sites the person has no reason to check, for backlinks, keywords, page speed or rankings, or to read many sites in a row. It has a small daily limit and refuses private or internal addresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| website | Yes | One public website address, for example "example.com". 4-253 characters. Private or internal addresses are refused. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| results | Yes | |
| more_info | Yes | |
| attribution | Yes | |
| result_count | Yes | |
| more_available | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Far exceeds what the annotations already provide (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld are covered). It discloses sampling with a page limit, whether every page was reached, robots.txt compliance, inter-request pauses, a ~30 second runtime, a small daily limit, and refusal of private/internal addresses. That is unusually thorough operational disclosure.
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?
Dense but front-loaded: the trigger condition opens the description, then scope, then behavior, then exclusions and limits. Every claim is substantive, though the single unbroken paragraph is long enough that the exclusions and limits could be easier to scan.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, yet the description still frames the shape and caveats of results (up to 5 rows, up to 5 example addresses per finding kind, timestamp, tool link; findings are leads, not rankings). Combined with runtime, rate limit, and authorization constraints, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
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% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics ('One public website address... 4-253 characters. Private or internal addresses are refused'). The description restates the one-address-per-call constraint with the same example the schema gives, adding little beyond it. Baseline 3 is correct.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('check the internal links of one specific public website') and enumerates the finding types it produces: orphan pages, broken internal links, sitemap entries that redirect or fail, weakly linked pages. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for without opening the schema.
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?
Explicit when-to-use ('when someone asks you to check the internal links of one specific public website they run or have permission to check') plus explicit exclusions (backlinks, keywords, page speed, rankings, reading many sites in a row) and an authorization precondition. Nothing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
check_site_internal_linksCheck one web page for broken links, redirect chains hop by hop and mixed content. Free, no key.
Check a page, AI-crawler access, llms.txt and backlinks of a site. Free, read-only.
Indexability, robots.txt, sitemap, TLS, domain expiry and Googlebot-vs-browser checks. No account.
Find what to fix on a site, check if changes worked, see how AI reads it. Free audit, no account.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.