MCP Web Validator

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Audit SEO metadata

seo.metadata

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect raw HTML locally to validate SEO metadata: titles, meta descriptions, H1 headings, and image alt attributes, helping identify missing or invalid tags before publishing.

Instructions

Inspects supplied HTML locally for title, meta description, h1 headings, and image alt attributes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "htmlContent": "<htmlContent>"
    },
    "name": "seo.metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`htmlContent`	Yes	Raw HTML markup to inspect locally.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`counts`	Yes
`issues`	Yes
`totalIssues`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety and locality are largely covered. The description reinforces locality ('locally') and lists the inspected elements, but adds nothing about the shape of the findings or limits beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the operation, the input source, and the four audit targets with zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the input and the audited elements adequately; only explicit routing versus the sibling tool 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema describing htmlContent as 'Raw HTML markup to inspect locally.' The description's 'supplied HTML' merely echoes this, adding no syntax, size, or format detail. Baseline 3 per the one-param/100%-coverage rule.

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?

States a specific verb (inspects) and resource (supplied HTML) and enumerates exactly what is checked: title, meta description, h1 headings, image alt attributes. It does not name or differentiate from the sibling schema.markup, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word 'locally' combined with 'supplied HTML' implies the usage context (offline auditing of provided markup) but there is no explicit when-to-use statement nor any mention of when to prefer the sibling schema.markup instead.

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

Deploy Server