Website Auditor MCP

Prioritized fixes

get_recommendations

Read-only

Get prioritized fixes to raise a website's AI visibility and audit scores. Returns ranked actions with expected impact, citing audit evidence like blocked AI crawlers or missing structured data.

Instructions

Get specific, prioritized fixes to raise a website's AI visibility and audit scores. Use this when someone asks "how do I fix this," "what should I change," "how do I improve my AI visibility," or after an audit surfaces issues. Returns ranked actions with expected impact, each built from the domain's latest audit and citing its evidence (blocked AI crawlers, missing structured data, the competitor sites the assistants cited). Works with any Website Auditor API key and needs an audit on record for the domain; with Pro it also says where to get listed, what the assistants get wrong about the business, and which file in the fix package fixes each finding — without Pro the listing places are only counted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	The website domain, e.g. "example.com".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tier`	No	Which list the API served. "free" omits where to get listed, what the assistants get wrong and each finding's fix file; its step marked `locked` only counts what Pro shows.
`run_id`	No	The audit the steps come from.
`recommendations`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv1.0.26Oct 5, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / recommendations / items / properties / evidence
```
Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / recommendations / items / properties / fix_id
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / recommendations / items / properties / id
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / recommendations / items / properties / locked
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / recommendations / items / properties / rank
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / recommendations / items / properties / source
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / run_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The audit the steps come from.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / tier

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which list the API served. \"free\" omits where to get listed, what the assistants get wrong and each finding's fix file; its step marked `locked` only counts what Pro shows.",
+  "enum": [
+    "free",
+    "pro"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.23Sep 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "recommendations": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "action": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "effort": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "expected_impact": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "why": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "recommendations"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.6Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the output is ranked with expected impact, is derived from the domain's latest audit, cites supporting evidence, and varies by plan tier (Pro adds listing places, assistant misconceptions, and per-file fixes; non-Pro only counts listing places). This is exactly the kind of gating and content-shape detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage triggers, then evidence and tiering. Dense but every clause carries information an agent needs; the long final sentence on Pro vs non-Pro behavior is the only place it verges on overload.

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 tool with a rich output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything else: prerequisites, trigger conditions, evidence sources, and tier-dependent return differences. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it correctly 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?

There is a single parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with a format example. The description usefully adds that the domain must have an audit on record, but contributes no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (prioritized fixes) with the outcome it targets: raising a website's AI visibility and audit scores. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_report or get_ai_visibility, which report status rather than prescribe ranked actions. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases ('how do I fix this', 'what should I change') and the timing condition ('after an audit surfaces issues'). It also states a prerequisite (an audit on record) and API-key compatibility. It does not name a specific alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of 5.

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

Deploy Server