Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SEOctopus

SEOctopus

by itsjwill
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

octo_report

Generate a multi-module SEO report for any URL with keyword analysis, site audit, and competitive insights. Choose from quick, standard, or deep analysis; output as JSON, markdown, or HTML.

Instructions

Generate a comprehensive multi-module SEO report

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": "octo_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to report on
keywordNoTarget keyword
formatNoReport formatmarkdown
depthNoAnalysis depthstandard

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states the report is generated, with no details on read-only nature, authorization needs, runtime, or side effects. Critical missing information for mutation assessment.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the key action. It wastes no words but could benefit from slight elaboration on output.

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?

For a tool that generates a multi-module report, the description is too brief. It omits return format (though 'format' parameter exists), content, time expectations, and how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving the agent uncertain.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with brief descriptions for each parameter. The tool's main description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies as schema does the work.

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 clearly states the tool generates a comprehensive multi-module SEO report, indicating an aggregated function. However, it does not specify which modules are included, leaving some ambiguity. It is distinguishable from sibling tools that perform individual analyses.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_site or analytics_overview. The description lacks context for when this report is preferable or what prerequisites exist.

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