Audit a website for AEO and GEO, then generate a prioritized plan your agent can execute. Built and hosted by AutomateLab, using AI-SEO and Citation Intelligence MCPs. Product and documentation: https://automatelab.tech/products/skills-and-plugins/ai-seo-magic-button/
Scored across 1 tool
There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of misselection or overlap with a sibling tool. Its purpose is stated precisely: full-site AEO/GEO audit producing a plan.json and checklist.
The single name generate_seo_plan follows a clear verb_noun snake_case convention and is self-descriptive. With only one tool there is no broader pattern to confirm consistency against, which slightly tempers the score.
A one-tool 'magic button' matches the branding of a single end-to-end automation, but the surface is thin: there is no way to inspect intermediate audit results, list prior plans, or re-run against a subset of pages. Acceptable for a one-shot workflow, borderline for a platform.
The audit-and-plan step is covered, but the lifecycle is a dead end: the description explicitly notes it produces a plan rather than edits, and there are no tools to retrieve, update, validate, or execute a previously generated plan. Agents doing follow-up work must leave the server entirely.
Crawl a site, run a whole-site AEO/GEO audit (via the ai-seo + citation-intelligence engines), and return a portable, agent-executable plan.json plus a markdown checklist. This produces an actionable PLAN, not direct edits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pages | No | Max pages to audit (default 10) | |
| domain | Yes | Site to audit — hostname or origin, e.g. example.com | |
| include_info | No | Include purely-informational findings (non-actionable notes). Off by default. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | |
| domain | Yes | |
| generated_at | Yes | |
| pages_audited | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive; the description corroborates this by clarifying that it only crawls and produces a plan, not edits. It also names the two output artifacts and the underlying engines (ai-seo + citation-intelligence), adding context beyond the annotations. It stops short of disclosing crawl duration or rate/scale considerations.
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 tight sentences with no filler; the action and the returned artifacts are front-loaded, and the plan-vs-edits caveat is placed where it will be read. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With a full schema, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description's burden is low, and it still names both output artifacts. It is essentially complete for correct invocation; only runtime/scale expectations for auditing up to 50 pages are left unaddressed.
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 description coverage is 100% with only three simple parameters, so the schema already explains domain, pages (with default and max), and include_info. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema carries the load.
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 concrete verb chain (crawl, audit, return) plus the exact deliverables: a portable agent-executable plan.json and a markdown checklist. The clarifying clause 'This produces an actionable PLAN, not direct edits' removes any ambiguity about the operation's nature, which matters since the name alone could imply mutation.
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?
It clearly frames the context of use ('whole-site AEO/GEO audit') and explicitly delimits the outcome as a plan rather than applied edits, which tells an agent when this tool is the right choice. There are no sibling tools to differentiate against, so the absence of named alternatives is not a gap, but no explicit when-not-to-use condition is given.
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.
generate_seo_plan
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.