creator-seo-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., keyword distance, performance, decay, audit, cannibalization). Only health_check and list_sites overlap slightly as both list GSC properties, but health_check primarily serves as a status check.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools generally follow a verb_noun pattern (list_sites, get_striking_distance_keywords, analyze_content_decay). health_check deviates (noun_noun) and 'audit_page_onpage' uses an awkward preposition, but overall pattern is mostly consistent.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools cover the core SEO workflow (health, sites, opportunities, performance, decay, audit, cannibalization, and a combined report) without being excessive. The scope is well-calibrated for creator SEO use.
Completeness4/5
The set covers key analysis areas: opportunity identification, page performance, content decay, on-page audit, and cannibalization. Missing are execution tools (e.g., update page) and broader keyword research, but the core analytical workflow is complete.
Average 3.7/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 11 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions fetching and parsing, but omits behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling (e.g., page not found), rate limits, or permission requirements. For a tool without annotations, this is insufficient.
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?
Single sentence clearly conveys the action, inputs, and output. No wasted words; front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch'. Appropriate for a simple tool.
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 has an output schema (not shown) and only two parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context. For a tool that suggests edits, it could mention that suggestions are action-oriented or that the tool is read-only.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Both parameters (page_url, target_query) are self-explanatory from the description, but no extra semantic detail is provided.
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 fetches a page, parses title/meta/headings/body, and returns concrete edit suggestions for a target query. It distinguishes from siblings like get_page_performance (performance metrics) and analyze_content_decay (content decay) by focusing on on-page SEO suggestions.
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 (e.g., analyze_content_decay, get_page_performance). The description implies usage for optimizing a page for a query, but lacks when-not-to-use or comparative 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?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., destructive potential), authentication needs, or rate limits. It only mentions the output sorting, leaving safety and operational behavior unclear.
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 primary purpose. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is efficient and easy to scan.
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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides minimal context. It explains the core problem and sorting, but omits details about return format, pagination, or limitations. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
All parameters are described in the input schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds that results are sorted by total impression volume, which relates to min_impressions but does not provide new syntactic or semantic details 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 identifies the tool's purpose: finding queries where multiple pages compete (cannibalization). It uses specific verb 'find' and resource 'queries with competing pages'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_page_performance or get_top_opportunities, which do not address cannibalization.
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 prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to siblings like 'analyze_content_decay' or 'audit_page_onpage'. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
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 does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or what happens if no data exists. While outputs are listed, the mechanism and constraints (e.g., maximum top queries) are omitted.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the key purpose ('Full GSC picture for one URL'), and lists specific outputs succinctly. Every word is useful with no redundancy.
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 has an output schema, the description covers return values adequately by naming the metrics. However, it could mention default lookback window or data recency expectations, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its moderate complexity.
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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (days, page_url, site_url), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it focuses on outputs. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as no added 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 clearly states the tool returns a 'full GSC picture for one URL' including specific metrics: clicks, impressions, CTR, position, and top queries. This verb+resource combination ('get page performance') is direct and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_striking_distance_keywords' or 'analyze_content_decay', which have different focuses.
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 a single URL deep dive but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'use this for raw performance, not for trend analysis'). No when-not-to-use or crossover with siblings is mentioned.
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. It discloses the default position range (4-15) and sorting by impression volume, but it does not explain how parameters like position_min/max override defaults or if the tool is read-only. The behavioral description is adequate but lacks depth.
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-loading the core purpose and a key behavior (sorting). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy 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?
Given the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is brief but covers the main concept. However, it does not explain how parameters influence results (e.g., adjusting position range or impression threshold), leaving some gaps for a complete understanding. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value description.
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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the default range (4-15) already present in the schema's default values for position_min and position_max. No additional parameter context is provided.
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 finds queries 'ranking in striking distance of page 1' with a default range of positions 4-15, and results are sorted by impression volume. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_top_opportunities' which likely targets top positions rather than near-top.
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 the tool is used for identifying high-potential queries near page 1, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_top_opportunities' or 'get_page_performance'). No exclusions or conditions are provided.
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 present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals sorting order (worst decliners first) but does not mention nondestructive behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. The description adds some context (comparison logic) but leaves gaps.
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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and includes the key sorting behavior. Every sentence earns its place.
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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core function, sorting, and implied use case. With only one required parameter and a clear purpose, the description is nearly complete, though it could mention required data sources or assumptions (e.g., GSC access) to be fully self-contained.
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?
All 4 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal additional meaning. It mentions the comparison periods (recent vs prior) but does not elaborate on how recent_days and compare_days map to those periods. The sorting note is present but applies to output, not parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 compares recent vs prior periods for every page and flags declining traffic, with results sorted by worst decliners first. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_page_performance or get_top_opportunities.
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 use for analyzing content decay but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_page_performance or find_cannibalization. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so it's adequate but not proactive.
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?
The description implies read-only behavior ('check', 'list') and does not suggest destructive actions. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it adequately conveys the safe, informational nature of the 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 sentence that is direct and without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately understandable.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, has output schema), the description is complete. It covers the purpose and does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage trivially, the description provides all necessary meaning. It clearly states what the tool does, adding value beyond the empty schema.
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 states a clear purpose: checking server status and listing verified GSC properties. It uses specific verbs and resources, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools that focus on analysis or specific functionalities.
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 guidance on when or why to use this tool over alternatives. Siblings like 'list_sites' may have overlapping functionality, but the description does not clarify when to prefer health_check.
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 only states 'list all properties you have access to,' without disclosing any behavioral traits like auth requirements, side effects, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks transparency beyond the basic action.
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 short sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wasted content, and the information is front-loaded.
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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is adequate for a simple list operation. It covers the core functionality, but could be slightly more complete by mentioning the output type or any limitations.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters, baseline score 4 is appropriate. No additional meaning is needed beyond what the schema provides.
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 lists all Google Search Console properties the user has access to. The verb 'list' and resource 'Google Search Console properties' are specific and distinct from sibling tools which focus on keywords, performance, and audits.
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 when to use the tool (when needing to list accessible properties) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools suggest other actions, but no direct guidance is provided.
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 reveals the tool is a read-style operation (combining data, no side effects mentioned) and discloses that revenue estimates use configured RPM and affiliate multipliers. However, it omits details like idempotency, required permissions, or error handling, which is acceptable for a non-destructive 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?
Three sentences with no waste: the first sentence captures the core function, the second explains the weighting mechanism, and the third specifies revenue estimation. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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 complex (combining three signals with revenue weighting) and has an output schema, so the description focuses on inputs and behavior. It could mention the output format or any prerequisites, but the presence of an output schema reduces the burden. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that site_rpm can override the default RPM from the environment, clarifying its role in revenue estimation beyond the schema. Other parameters are adequately covered by 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 the tool combines three distinct signals (striking-distance keywords, content decay, cannibalization), weights them by estimated revenue, and returns a single ranked action list. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_striking_distance_keywords or analyze_content_decay.
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 when to use this tool (for a consolidated revenue-weighted opportunity list) and lists sibling tools that cover individual components. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide direct comparisons, leaving some inference to the agent.
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:

[![creator-seo-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Yoshyaes/creator-seo-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Yoshyaes/creator-seo-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![creator-seo-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Yoshyaes/creator-seo-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Yoshyaes/creator-seo-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/Yoshyaes/creator-seo-mcp'

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