Provides SEO scoring, search intent detection, and opportunity prioritization tools for AI agents using Hermes.
ā If this agent-first tool helps your workflow, please star the repo. Stars make this tooling easier for other builders to discover and help Delx keep shipping open infrastructure. š§± Part of the Delx agent stack — 15 open-source MCP servers across body, reach and coordination.
Agent-first SEO scoring, search-intent detection and opportunity prioritization. It packages the useful parts of a production content pipeline into a clean local CLI plus an optional MCP server for Codex, Claude, Cursor, Hermes, OpenClaw and other agent runtimes.
Use it when an agent needs deterministic SEO checks before rewriting, refreshing or publishing content.
Classifies search intent: informational, navigational, transactional and commercial investigation
Scores markdown articles for agent-readable SEO gaps
Prioritizes GSC-style opportunities by impressions, position, CTR gap, conversions and commercial value
Exposes manifest, connection_status and privacy_audit surfaces before content tools
Runs locally by default with no required API keys
Related MCP server: GeoRanker MCP Server
pipx install agent-seo-engineWith MCP support:
pipx install "agent-seo-engine[mcp]"Published on PyPI: agent-seo-engine. Release automation uses PyPI Trusted Publishing, so GitHub Actions can publish future versions without long-lived PyPI tokens. See docs/pypi-publishing.md.
agent-seo-engine manifest --client codex
agent-seo-engine doctor
agent-seo-engine privacy-audit
agent-seo-engine intent "best ai agent framework"
agent-seo-engine score --file examples/article.md --primary-keyword "ai agent testing"
agent-seo-engine opportunity --impressions 4200 --clicks 80 --position 12.4 --commercial-intent 0.8
agent-seo-engine image-alt --file page.htmlAll commands return structured JSON by default. Use --format markdown for human review.
agent-seo-mcpHermes-style config:
mcp_servers:
agent_seo:
command: agent-seo-mcp
args: []
sampling:
enabled: falseRecommended first calls:
agent_seo_connection_status
agent_seo_privacy_audit
agent_seo_score_content
Tool | Purpose |
| Install/runtime guidance for agent clients |
| Local/offline readiness and optional integration status |
| Draft, analytics and credential boundaries |
| Search intent classification |
| Markdown quality checks with exact recommendations |
| GSC-style opportunity scoring |
| Image |
Use agent-seo-engine. First call agent_seo_connection_status and agent_seo_privacy_audit.
Score the draft, then propose only edits tied to failed checks or high-impact opportunities.Agents should not guess whether a draft is ready. They should call the scoring tool, read exact failed checks, then propose focused edits. The engine is intentionally deterministic and local so repeated agent runs can compare output over time.
python3 -m venv .venv
. .venv/bin/activate
pip install -e ".[dev]"
pytest
python -m compileall -q srcšØ support@delx.ai ā general questions, integration help, partnerships
š Bug reports / feature requests ā GitHub Issues
š¦ Updates ā @delx369 on X
š Site ā wellness.delx.ai
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | No | ||
| file_path | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | No | generic |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clicks | No | ||
| position | No | ||
| conversions | No | ||
| impressions | No | ||
| commercial_intent | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| markdown | No | ||
| file_path | No | ||
| primary_keyword | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each tool targets a distinct SEO function (e.g., image alt, intent detection, privacy audit), with no apparent overlap in purpose.
While all tools share the 'agent_seo_' prefix, some follow a verb_noun pattern (check_image_alt, detect_intent, prioritize_opportunity, score_content) while others are plain nouns (connection_status, manifest, privacy_audit), creating inconsistency.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a specialized SEO assistant, providing focused functionality without being overly numerous or sparse.
The set covers important SEO checks (alt text, content score, privacy) but lacks common tasks like keyword research, meta tag optimization, or sitemap management, indicating notable gaps.
SEO MCP server: crawl your site, find AI-visibility gaps, and ship the fix from your coding agent.
Agent-native MCP over US public + government records, entity- and parcel-keyed.
Agent-driven search: build, import, tune, search, and score result quality ā all over MCP.
Scrape, crawl and search the web for AI agents via MCP.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/davidmosiah/agent-seo-engine'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
