Run a 0–100 technical SEO and website modernization audit scorecard for a target URL, returning prioritized fixes to improve crawlability, performance, and structure.
Run an instant 0-100 Technical SEO & Website Modernization Audit scorecard with prioritized fixes ($0.02 USDC on Base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Target website URL to audit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: the call is instant and it is a paid operation ($0.02 USDC on Base), which matters for agents managing spend. It says nothing about failure behavior for malformed or unreachable URLs, rate limits, or what the prioritized-fix output actually looks like.
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?
One compact sentence front-loaded with the action and the deliverable. The cost note is appended efficiently rather than buried. Nothing in it is wasted, though it could shed the 'Website Modernization' ornament.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essentials an agent needs to decide and invoke: what it produces (0-100 scorecard with prioritized fixes) and the payment requirement. Error handling and response format remain unstated but are minor for this shape.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'url'. The description adds no format guidance (e.g. scheme requirements, whether redirects or subdomains are followed), so this sits at the baseline for fully covered schemas.
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 ('Run ... Audit') and resource ('Technical SEO & Website Modernization Audit scorecard'), and adds the output shape (0-100 scorecard with prioritized fixes). 'Website Modernization' broadens it slightly, but the resource is still identifiable at a glance and clearly distinct from all listed siblings.
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?
There is no statement of when to choose this tool versus any alternative, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word 'Audit'; the agent must infer that it should call this when it has a URL to evaluate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.