Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
broke2built-skills-mcp

broke2built-skills-mcp

by lordbasilaiassistant-sudo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

seo_audit

Analyze on-page SEO elements including title, meta description, H1 tags, canonical URLs, OpenGraph tags, and image alt text. Get graded issues and actionable insights for improvement.

Instructions

On-page SEO snapshot: title/meta, H1 count, canonical, OpenGraph, image-alt coverage + graded issues. (free taste tier: 20 calls/day/IP — set ALLY_KEY env for 100/day free)

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": "seo_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe url to analyze

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses rate limits and the 'free taste tier' but does not mention authentication requirements beyond the optional environment variable, nor any read-only or destructive behavior. It adds some value beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, highly efficient. The first sentence front-loads what the tool does, the second provides critical usage limits. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the simple input (single URL, no output schema), the description covers the key outputs (title/meta, H1 count, etc.) and rate limits. It lacks details on error handling or response format but is adequate for a straightforward tool.

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% for the single 'url' parameter with description 'The url to analyze'. The description adds no further meaning, such as URL format or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 provides an 'On-page SEO snapshot' listing specific elements like title/meta, H1 count, canonical, OpenGraph, image-alt coverage, and graded issues. It differentiates from sibling tools (email/domain/IP) by its specific focus on SEO auditing.

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?

The description only includes rate limit information ('20 calls/day/IP', 'set ALLY_KEY env for 100/day free') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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