Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Web Intel MCP

Web Intel MCP

by ArceeDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

compare_seo

Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit and rank 2–5 pages, including your site vs competitors, to compare SEO performance. Unreachable URLs are reported and refunded, not billed.

Instructions

Audit 2-5 pages (e.g. you vs competitors) and rank them. Costs seo_audit price x number of URLs.

Unreachable URLs are reported, not billed: their share is refunded as one batch.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "compare_seo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot convey: billing is seo_audit price times URL count, and unreachable URLs are reported but refunded as one batch. Return values are covered by the output schema, so no credit is lost there.

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 capability statement is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the billing/refund behavior follows in two compact clauses. No sentence is redundant given the cost and cardinality details carry real decision value.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, page-count limits, comparative use case, and cost/refund mechanics. Minor gaps remain around URL formatting expectations and whether results are ranked per-metric or overall, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter at 0% schema description coverage, and the schema imposes no minItems/maxItems, so the description's '2-5 pages' gives an otherwise absent cardinality constraint. It does not say whether URLs must be absolute/schemed or may span arbitrary domains, leaving some input-format ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Audit 2-5 pages ... and rank them,' which tells an agent this is a multi-URL comparative audit rather than a single-page one. It does not explicitly name the seo_audit sibling as the single-page alternative, so differentiation is implied through the page-count bound and the pricing reference rather than stated.

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?

'e.g. you vs competitors' supplies a concrete usage context and the '2-5 pages' bound tells the agent when the tool is applicable. There is no explicit when-not guidance or instruction to prefer this over calling seo_audit repeatedly, which is the main alternative an agent would weigh.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools