seo-geo-mcp-server

Redirect Trace

redirect_trace

Read-onlyIdempotent

Trace a URL's redirect path step by step, exposing loops, temporary 302s, and HTTPS downgrades. Diagnose crawl-budget waste and resolve redirect chains.

Instructions

Follow a URL's redirect chain hop by hop, reporting each status code and target. Flags long chains (which waste crawl budget), redirect loops, temporary 302/307 redirects where a permanent 301/308 belongs, and chains that do not end on HTTPS.

Args:

url (string): the starting URL.
response_format ('markdown' | 'json'): output format (default 'markdown').

Returns: { final_url, final_status, hops[{url, status, location}], hop_count, https_upgrade, ends_https, has_loop, has_temporary_redirect, elapsed_ms, findings[] }.

Example: "Where does http://example.com/old-page end up?" -> redirect_trace(url="http://example.com/old-page").

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
`hops`	Yes
`findings`	Yes
`has_loop`	Yes
`final_url`	Yes
`hop_count`	Yes
`elapsed_ms`	Yes
`ends_https`	Yes
`final_status`	Yes
`https_upgrade`	Yes
`has_temporary_redirect`	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

A4.2/5.0

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 is not burdened with proving safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it describes hop-by-hop traversal, flags crawl-budget waste, detects loops, and identifies temporary vs permanent redirects. The Returns section also outlines the structured result fields, which is useful context even though an output schema exists.

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 a front-loaded purpose, followed by Args, Returns, and an example. Every section serves a purpose, and the example is highly actionable. There is some redundancy between the Args section and the schema, but it does not harm clarity enough to warrant a lower score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The definition fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool: it states the exact operation, the conditions it flags, parameter defaults and formats, the return payload shape, and provides a natural-language example. Combined with the rich annotations and schema, nothing needed for correct usage is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema itself already documents url and response_format in detail, including defaults, enums, and the https:// scheme fallback. The description duplicates this information with its Args section and adds a useful example, but it does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Follow a URL's redirect chain hop by hop', and explicitly enumerates the reported status codes and targets. It also lists the issues it flags (long chains, loops, temporary redirects, non-HTTPS endings), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools.

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?

The tool's use case is clearly stated in the first sentence and reinforced with a concrete example query-to-call mapping. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context makes it obvious that this is the redirect-specific diagnostic tool among the siblings.

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

Deploy Server