Scored across 20 tools
The set contains many superficially similar tools (audit_page/audit_site/audit_sitemap, check_robots/check_sitemap/check_technical, three score_* tools), but every description includes explicit 'When to use' and 'Distinct from X' guidance that cleanly scopes each to a different resource or granularity. Only minor confusion is plausible (e.g. audit_page vs audit_site vs audit_sitemap, or AEO vs GEO rewrites), and the text resolves it. No tool appears to duplicate another's purpose.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (audit_page, check_robots, score_citation_worthiness, rewrite_aeo, diff_pages), but several flip to noun_verb (llms_txt_validate, llms_txt_generate, pricing_generate, report_save). The mix is still readable and groups logically, but it is not a single predictable convention.
20 tools sits at the heavy end of the acceptable range. The domain is broad (audit, scoring, rewriting, generation, reporting) and most tools earn their place, but the audit/check/score clusters inflate the count beyond what a lean surface would need.
The surface covers the full AI-SEO lifecycle: page/domain/sitemap audits, schema, canonical, technical, robots, sitemap validation, four scoring tools, AEO/GEO rewriting, llms.txt and pricing generation, entity extraction, citation simulation, competitor diffing, and report export. Given the read-only audit framing, there are no obvious dead ends.