Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
seo-toolkit-mcp

seo-toolkit-mcp

by gmoneyn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

heading_structure

Analyze a page's heading hierarchy (H1-H6) and flag issues: missing H1, multiple H1s, skipped levels. Verify content structure for SEO and accessibility.

Instructions

Analyze a page's heading hierarchy (H1-H6). Returns the heading outline/tree, counts per level, and issues like missing H1, multiple H1s, or skipped levels. Use to verify content structure for SEO and accessibility.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "heading_structure"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe full URL to analyze (e.g. https://example.com/page)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the return values (heading outline/tree, counts, issues) and the type of analysis performed, which is sufficient for a read-only analysis 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 only two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second details the output and use case. Every word adds value and there is 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?

For a simple 1-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output behavior, and use case. Minor missing details like error handling would improve it, but it is sufficiently complete.

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 fully documents the single url parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool analyzes a page's heading hierarchy (H1-H6), using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like meta_tags, robots_txt, and keyword_density.

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 gives a clear use case ('verify content structure for SEO and accessibility'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools