AutoRank MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool targets a distinct SEO asset or action, making most selections unambiguous. Some overlap exists between check_title_length/check_description_length and serp_preview, but the descriptions clarify the different outputs. No tools are redundant.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming is mostly consistent with a generate_/check_/validate_ pattern, and all names use snake_case. Exceptions like slugify, keyword_density, and readability_score deviate slightly but remain intuitive and readable.
Tool Count4/5
At 18 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but justified by the breadth of SEO functionality. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, though a few could be consolidated or omitted without major loss.
Completeness3/5
The toolkit covers many core SEO tasks: meta generation, robots handling, common schemas, and content analysis. However, significant gaps remain, such as sitemap generation, redirect handling, and a broader set of schema types (e.g., Product, Recipe). These missing pieces limit full lifecycle coverage.
Average 3.4/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'browser versions' implies. The lack of any behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded, containing only one sentence. However, the sentence is cryptic and under-specified ('these tools', 'not exposed here'), so while it is concise, it does not earn its place by providing clear value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description fails to explain the core concepts of the tool: what 'browser versions' are, what 'these tools' refers to, or what 'not exposed here' means. Given the ambiguity, the description is not complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete and no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'List' but the resource is ambiguous: 'the browser versions of these tools, plus the ones not exposed here' does not clearly identify what is being listed or what 'these tools' refers to. It also does not differentiate this tool from the sibling tools, which are all similarly named SEO/utility tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It doesn't state any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds only one behavioral detail (dates must be ISO 8601), but it does not describe output format, whether the generated JSON-LD is validated, or any side effects. This is minimal for a generation tool.
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 composed of two short sentences with no redundant words. Each sentence adds some information: the first defines the action and resource, the second clarifies date format. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, slightly reducing the score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and 8 siblings, this description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, parameter clarification, and sibling differentiation. While an output schema exists, the description still needs to explain when and how to use the tool effectively, which it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 7 undocumented parameters. It adds meaning only to date-related parameters (date_published, date_modified) by specifying ISO 8601 format, but leaves headline, author_name, image_url, description, and publisher_name without any semantic guidance beyond their schema names.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'Article JSON-LD', identifying the tool's primary function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling schema generators like generate_faq_schema or generate_breadcrumb_schema, though the specific 'Article' type provides implicit distinction.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention that this is for article pages or that it should not be used for other schema types. No context about appropriate use cases or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions generation but does not describe the output format, whether the result is a string or object, side effects, or any constraints beyond the address fields. This is a thin description for a tool with no behavioral 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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to read. However, given the tool's complexity, the brevity borders on under-specification, though conciseness itself is well handled.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and a meaningful output (JSON-LD), the description is incomplete. It does not address what the output looks like, how the required address fields are used, or how it relates to sibling schema generators. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent without essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameter meanings, required fields, or defaults. While some field names are self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the raw schema property names, leaving 9 parameters with no semantic guidance.
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 clearly states the tool's function: generating LocalBusiness JSON-LD, and specifies that it includes a postal address. This differentiates it from sibling schema generators like generate_article_schema, generate_faq_schema, and generate_breadcrumb_schema, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does, leaving the user to infer usage context from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Generate' but does not disclose whether the tool returns text, writes files, or has any side effects. It also fails to mention any limitations, such as whether it only outputs a template or supports full customization. The 'optionally block' phrase hints at behavior but lacks detail.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds the optional AI crawler feature. However, it is so brief that it misses critical information, which slightly reduces the score from 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 optional parameters and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. The output schema exists but is not visible to us, and the description does not explain return values or behavior. The agent is left without context on how to properly invoke the tool or interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters. The only hint is 'block AI crawlers', which maps to block_ai_crawlers but is not explicitly tied to the parameter. There is no explanation of allow_paths, disallow_paths, crawl_delay, or sitemap_url, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.
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 clearly states the tool's primary function with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a robots.txt'. It also mentions a key feature (optionally blocking AI crawlers) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_robots_txt or generate_robots_meta.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify when one might need validate_robots_txt instead of this generator.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions a 'density warning' but does not explain how it is determined, and it gives no indication of whether the tool is read-only or has any side effects or rate limits.
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 description is a single sentence that is appropriately sized for a simple tool. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no redundant words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic input (body of text) and output concept (frequency with density warning), but given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it misses important context such as how the density warning is calculated, which leaves it incomplete for a new user.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any explanation for the parameters. While 'text' and 'top_n' are self-explanatory names, the description fails to clarify that top_n controls the number of results or how the text is processed.
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?
The description clearly states that the tool computes word and phrase frequency for a body of text and includes a density warning. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like readability_score, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'calculates'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced, leaving the user to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the outputs and does not mention any behavioral traits such as side effects, input length limits, or how invalid text is handled. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 description is a single, concise sentence of 12 words that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details that would help the agent decide when to invoke it. The lack of annotations further reduces completeness.
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?
The schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'for a body of text' adds minimal clarification to the 'text' parameter, but it does not specify constraints, format, or examples, offering only marginal semantic value.
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?
The description clearly states that the tool provides Flesch Reading Ease and grade level for a body of text, which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on titles, meta tags, and robots. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates' or 'computes', making it slightly less direct than the ideal.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the core action of building a UTM-tagged URL, which implies a non-destructive operation, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as validation rules, how parameters are appended, or potential side effects. The description is not misleading, but it is minimal.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately scannable. It is appropriately concise for a simple builder tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters (4 required) and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be fully contextual. It does not explain what constitutes a valid 'url', how the UTM parameters relate to the final output, or any constraints. Although an output schema exists, the input semantics remain uncovered, making this description incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. The phrase 'UTM-tagged' hints at the standard UTM parameters (source, medium, campaign, etc.), but it does not explicitly define the 'url', 'term', 'content', or their roles. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent to rely on domain knowledge.
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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and a clear resource ('UTM-tagged tracking URL'), which distinctly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools focused on titles, meta tags, robots, and schema. It is immediately clear what this tool does.
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?
The description provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. It simply states the function without guiding the agent on decision-making, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals the tool checks truncation but does not disclose the truncation criteria (e.g., character count, pixel width), how it simulates Google results, or any edge cases. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool whose core behavior depends on these rules.
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 description is exactly one sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's central purpose is truncation checking, the description omits the most important context: what threshold or algorithm is used. The output schema exists, so return format may be covered, but the behavioral criteria for truncation are not. This makes the description incomplete for a task where the rule is essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds 'meta description' to the parameter, which is somewhat redundant given the tool name. It does not explain expected input format, length limits, or any additional constraints, leaving the sole parameter under-specified.
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 action ('Check') and a specific resource ('meta description') with a clear outcome ('will be truncated in Google results'). It is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_title_length.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a clear use case: when you have a meta description and want to know if it will be truncated. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like serp_preview or check_title_length, nor any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the resulting tag and an explanation of what it permits, which suggests a pure builder with no side effects. However, it does not describe default behavior, edge cases, or how conflicting directives are handled.
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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and object, includes the output structure, and contains no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered, which helps. However, with 8 parameters and no parameter documentation or usage boundaries, the description leaves gaps about directive semantics and value formats (e.g., unavailable_after). The self-explanatory parameter names make it minimally viable, but it's not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The word 'directives' is generic and does not explain the roles of index, follow, max_snippet, unavailable_after, or their interactions.
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 uses the specific verb 'Build' and clearly names the resource ('robots meta tag'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_robots_txt and the broader generate_meta_tags. It also states the output includes both the tag and an explanation, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the description—this tool is for building a robots meta tag—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like generate_robots_txt or generate_meta_tags, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the core transformation ('clean URL slug') without disclosing how the slug is generated—such as lowercase conversion, separator handling, stopword removal, or truncation behavior via max_length. This leaves significant behavior undisclosed for a transformation tool.
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 description is a single, direct sentence with no padding or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and uses every word effectively, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, and the description gives the essential purpose. However, with an output schema present, return values are likely documented elsewhere, but the description still lacks key contextual information about how the parameters affect behavior. It is minimally adequate for a basic utility but leaves out important details for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. However, it does not mention any of the parameters (text, max_length, keep_stopwords). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value in clarifying how max_length affects output or what 'keep_stopwords' means.
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 uses a specific verb ('Turn') and clearly states the resource ('a title') and the outcome ('a clean URL slug'). It is immediately obvious what the tool does and it naturally differentiates from the sibling tools, which are all focused on meta tags, schemas, or SEO metrics rather than slug generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage scenarios (converting titles for URLs) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. Since none of the siblings perform slugification, there is no real alternative to differentiate from, but the lack of explicit guidance on when to use it keeps the score at a mid level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'surface the mistakes' but does not explain what validation entails, whether it is read-only, or how results are presented. The description leaves significant behavioral details unspecified, such as how the content is processed or what constitutes a 'damaging' mistake.
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 description is a single, tightly written sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for a tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the description lacks guidance on input format and behavioral specifics, making it adequate but incomplete. It is enough for a straightforward validator but leaves room for interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for the 'content' parameter (0% coverage), and the description does not elaborate on it. While 'content' likely refers to the robots.txt text, the description offers no explicit definition, format, or examples, leaving ambiguity about whether it expects raw text or something else.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('validate') and resource ('a robots.txt'), and adds specificity with 'surface the mistakes that actually cause damage.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_robots_txt and generate_robots_meta, which focus on creation rather than validation.
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 description implies the tool should be used when you have a robots.txt to check for damaging mistakes. While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, the verb 'validate' sets a clear context distinct from generation tools, which is sufficient for a simple validation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the detail that the preview includes truncation, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not clarify whether the tool fetches the URL or uses only the provided strings, nor does it describe the output format or any limitations. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.
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 description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no extraneous words and effectively conveys the tool's function and a key behavior.
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 simple tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a notable behavioral detail. Since an output schema exists, return value details are not required. However, it lacks context about the preview format (e.g., whether it returns an image or HTML) and usage boundaries, which slightly reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning or constraints. The description does not mention the parameters (title, description, url) at all. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no additional semantics such as format requirements, character limits, or relationships between parameters.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Preview how a result will render in Google.' It uses a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('result in Google'), and the focus on rendering distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_title_length or generate_meta_tags. The additional detail 'including truncation' further specifies the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for visualizing a Google SERP rendering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. For instance, it does not mention that check_title_length or check_description_length are better for measuring character counts. This is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the generation behavior and the item requirement ('name' and 'url'), but lacks details about return format, side effects, or validation. Since generation is a non-destructive read-like operation, the missing details are not critical, but more clarity would be beneficial.
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 description is two sentences with zero redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and key requirement, exemplifying optimal conciseness.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter, and the output schema covers return values. The description provides the critical input requirement, making it sufficient for basic invocation. However, it omits broader context like common breadcrumb ordering or when to use breadcrumbs, but that is not essential for a straightforward generator.
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?
The input schema only specifies an array of objects with additionalProperties true, providing no property details. The description fills the gap by stating 'Each item needs 'name' and 'url'', which is essential for correct invocation, thus adding significant meaning 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 clearly states 'Generate BreadcrumbList JSON-LD', specifying the exact output format and distinguishing it from sibling schema generators like FAQ or Article schema. The additional note about item requirements reinforces the purpose.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_faq_schema or generate_article_schema. It only describes the action and a constraint, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format ('Returns HTML ready to paste') and scope ('complete head block'), but does not explain how optional parameters (image_url, site_name, twitter_card) affect the generated tags or whether defaults are applied. It's honest but sparse for a generation tool.
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?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the output deliverable. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple generation tool with an output schema, the description covers the main deliverable and output format. However, it omits guidance on when to use this versus related tools (though siblings vary enough) and doesn't clarify behavior with missing optional fields. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the description could still be richer.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps input fields to output tags (title, description, canonical, Open Graph, Twitter Card), implying that canonical_url and image_url feed the respective tags. However, it doesn't explicitly explain each parameter's role or allowed values, leaving some ambiguity.
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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('complete head block'), enumerating the exact components (title, description, canonical, Open Graph, Twitter Card). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_robots_meta (robots-specific) and validate_json_ld (JSON-LD validation).
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 description implicitly sets a clear use case: generating a full set of meta tags for a page head. It doesn't explicitly state 'when not to use' or name alternatives, but the 'complete head block' phrasing makes it obvious this is the go-to for meta tag generation, distinct from validation or robots-related siblings. Lacks an explicit exclusion, hence 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavior: if any listed page lacks the full set or self-reference, the entire cluster is ignored, which is a key failure condition. It does not describe the output format or edge cases, but that is partially covered by the output schema.
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 description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every sentence adds substantive information. There is no padding or repetition.
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 simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the core input requirements and the critical cluster-ignored behavior. Minor omissions like URL formatting (absolute vs relative) and the effect of include_x_default are acceptable given the schema and parameter naming.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'pages' parameter by specifying that each page requires 'lang' and 'url', which is essential. The 'include_x_default' parameter is left unexplained, though its name is self-explanatory, so the compensation is partial.
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 clearly states the tool's function ('Generate hreflang link tags') with a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like generate_meta_tags or generate_robots_txt. It also specifies required input fields, further clarifying its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when to use it over siblings. However, it provides clear context that each page must include 'lang' and 'url' and that the full set with self-reference is required, which guides correct usage. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present, so it falls short of explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains a key constraint (page visibility and spam implications) but does not describe the tool's internal validation behavior, output format, or whether it performs any side effects. This is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second adds a crucial constraint. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.
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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core requirements and constraints. It could optionally mention the output format more explicitly, but 'Generate FAQPage JSON-LD' implies the output. The description is largely complete for its intended use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage, but the description explicitly states that each item in the questions_and_answers array needs 'question' and 'answer'. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's generic 'additionalProperties: true' and effectively documents the required structure.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Generate FAQPage JSON-LD' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_article_schema and generate_breadcrumb_schema by naming the FAQPage schema type explicitly.
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 description provides a clear usage condition: answers must already be visible on the page. It also warns against using the tool as a shortcut when content isn't visible, framing it as a spam signal. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling schema generators or mention when not to use it in favor of another tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the measurement method (approximate pixel width instead of character count), the reason (Google truncates on width), and the return values (estimate, limit, verdict). This is genuinely transparent for a non-destructive check tool.
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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then a concise explanation of method and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 tool is simple: one parameter, output schema exists, and the description covers purpose, method, and result. No additional context (such as authentication or rate limits) is necessary for a check tool like this. The description is fully complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
The schema has zero description coverage for the 'title' parameter, but the description compensates by identifying it as 'a page title' and explaining that it will be measured for width. This gives enough meaning for an agent to pass the correct value.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a page title will be truncated in Google results.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_description_length (which checks meta descriptions) and serp_preview (which previews the entire SERP).
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 use case is clearly implied: use this tool to verify if a page title will be truncated in Google search results. The Google-specific context provides clear placement among alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly name any exclusions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool parses, checks required Schema.org fields, and flags common warning triggers, implying a read-only validation behavior. It does not explicitly state side effects, but 'validate' suggests no modifications, and the output schema will cover return values.
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 description is one concise sentence, structured with a colon and a list, front-loading the action verb and resource. No unnecessary words are present.
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?
For a single-parameter validation tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers selection and invocation context adequately. It is complete for the agent to understand when and how to use it.
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?
The input schema has no parameter descriptions, but the description explicitly identifies the 'content' parameter as a JSON-LD block to validate, providing meaning beyond the schema. With only one parameter, this is sufficient.
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 clearly states the tool's function: validating a JSON-LD block via parsing, checking required Schema.org fields, and flagging common rich-result warning causes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate schema or check other SEO elements.
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 description implies use when you have an existing JSON-LD block to validate, and it is not for generating schemas. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![autorank-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RyanKramer/autorank-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RyanKramer/autorank-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![autorank-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RyanKramer/autorank-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RyanKramer/autorank-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/RyanKramer/autorank-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server