seo-geo-mcp-server

Heading Structure

heading_structure

Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit a page's heading structure (H1-H6) to detect skipped levels, empty tags, and question headings that signal featured snippet potential.

Instructions

Extract the full h1–h6 outline and evaluate it: how many h1s, whether levels are skipped (h2 followed by h4), empty heading tags, and how many headings are phrased as questions — the last being a strong signal for featured snippets and AI citations.

Args:

url (string): the page to check.
response_format ('markdown' | 'json'): output format (default 'markdown').

Returns: { headings[{level, text, skips_level}], h1_count, h1_text[], level_skips, empty_headings, question_headings[], outline, score, grade, findings[] }.

Example: "Show me the heading outline of https://example.com/guide" -> heading_structure(url="https://example.com/guide").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Page URL to analyse, e.g. 'https://example.com/blog/post'. The scheme defaults to https://.
`response_format`	No	Output format: 'markdown' for a human-readable summary (default) or 'json' for the full structured payload.	markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`grade`	Yes
`score`	Yes
`h1_text`	Yes
`outline`	Yes
`findings`	Yes
`h1_count`	Yes
`headings`	Yes
`final_url`	Yes
`level_skips`	Yes
`empty_headings`	Yes
`question_headings`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.0Sep 16, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv1.0.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds value by specifying the exact metrics computed (level_skips, question_headings, grade/score) and the rationale for question headings being a strong snippet/citation signal. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with an Args, Returns, and Example section, front-loading the core purpose. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds functional or contextual value (e.g., the snippet-signal note). No filler or tautology.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the input, output format (with return fields), and an example invocation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to spell out return structure, and the description provides enough for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both url and response_format are already well documented. The description repeats the parameter list and adds an example call, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full semantic weight.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('full h1–h6 outline'), then details exactly what is evaluated (h1 count, level skips, empty headings, question phrasing). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like meta_tags_check or content_analysis by focusing solely on heading structure and its SEO signals.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that heading analysis is part of a broader SEO audit or when to prefer seo_audit over this specific check. The context is implicit from the name and description, but the tool does not state exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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

Deploy Server