Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SEOctopus

SEOctopus

by itsjwill
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

audit_page

Audit any URL for on-page SEO issues. Identify problems like missing meta tags, poor heading structure, and content quality gaps to improve search rankings.

Instructions

Run a full on-page SEO audit on a URL

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": "audit_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to audit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or what the audit entails (e.g., network requests, data persistence).

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, front-loaded, every word adds value. No wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description omits critical details about what a 'full on-page SEO audit' includes, such as metrics checked or format of results. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's output scope.

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% (the single 'url' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline is 3.

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?

Description clearly states 'Run a full on-page SEO audit on a URL' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_site (site-wide) and audit_content (content-only).

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 to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_site, audit_content, or audit_links. The description implies its use for a single URL on-page audit but does not provide explicit context 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