Local SEO Data

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

page_audit

Read-only

Audit a single page's on-page SEO to get a score, title, meta description, headings, word count, load time, Core Web Vitals, schema markup, mobile friendliness, and severity-ranked issues.

Instructions

Use when auditing a single page's on-page SEO. Returns seo_score, title, meta_description, h1, word_count, load_time_ms, body_text_unreadable, core_web_vitals (lab lcp in ms and cls; inp is null — it needs field data), issues with severity (seo_score is 100 minus 15 per critical, 5 per warning, 1 per info), schema_markup, and mobile_friendly. Costs 1 credit.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Full URL to audit (e.g. "https://example.com/page")

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`h1`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`issues`	Yes
`seo_score`	Yes
`word_count`	Yes
`load_time_ms`	Yes
`schema_markup`	Yes
`core_web_vitals`	Yes
`mobile_friendly`	Yes
`meta_description`	Yes
`body_text_unreadable`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Oct 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "body_text_unreadable": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "core_web_vitals": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "cls": {
+          "type": [
+            "number",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "inp": {
+          "type": [
+            "number",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "lcp": {
+          "type": [
+            "number",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "note": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "source": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "lcp",
+        "cls"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "h1": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "issues": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "issue": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "severity": {
+            "enum": [
+              "critical",
+              "warning",
+              "info"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "severity",
+          "issue"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "load_time_ms": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "meta_description": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "mobile_friendly": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "schema_markup": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "seo_score": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "word_count": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "seo_score",
+    "title",
+    "meta_description",
+    "h1",
+    "word_count",
+    "load_time_ms",
+    "core_web_vitals",
+    "issues",
+    "schema_markup",
+    "mobile_friendly"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses credit cost ('Costs 1 credit'), the exact seo_score arithmetic, and a real limitation ('inp is null — it needs field data', 'body_text_unreadable'). These are behavioral traits the agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then a dense but purposeful enumeration of returns and the cost note. Every clause carries information, though the return list is long enough that it slightly outweighs the opening guidance.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers the trigger, the cost, the scoring formula, the known-null metric and its cause, and a flag for unreadable content. Combined with the existing output schema, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results correctly.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the URL format. The description adds nothing about URL semantics (e.g. http vs https, redirects, trailing slash), so it sits at the baseline for fully documented params.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: auditing a single page's on-page SEO. The 'single page' scope distinguishes it from site-wide siblings such as local_audit and citation_audit, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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 opening clause 'Use when auditing a single page's on-page SEO' gives a clear selection condition against the site-level audit siblings. It does not explicitly name when-not to use it or call out the alternative tool by name, so it stops short of a 5.

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