Skip to main content
Glama

seopass_run

Runs a read-only SEO audit on a public URL or registered pack, returning a verdict, score, findings, fix prompts, and an in-session run ID.

Instructions

Run SEOPass against a public URL or registered pack. Returns a live-readonly SEO verdict, score, findings, fix prompts, and an in-session run id.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoTarget URL for a one-off SEOPass read-only run
pack_nameNoName of a registered SEOPass pack; the pack URL is used as the target
target_shaNoOptional PR or commit SHA for receipt staleness checks

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.11
    • addedInput schema / properties / target_sha
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional PR or commit SHA for receipt staleness checks",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / properties / url / description
      Previous value: -"Target URL for a one-off SEOPass plan"New value: +"Target URL for a one-off SEOPass read-only run"
  2. Addedv0.1.9
  3. Removed
  4. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses "live-readonly" and lists return artifacts, but does not cover prerequisites, side-effect boundaries, run-id lifecycle, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the action and then the return contents. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description's return summary is valuable and reasonably complete. The main gap is usage routing against sibling tools, but the core purpose, targets, and outputs are covered.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description maps the URL and registered-pack target concepts but adds no syntax or format detail, and it omits target_sha entirely.

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?

"Run SEOPass" states a specific verb and resource, and the target is clarified as a public URL or registered pack. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as seopass_register_pack, seopass_status, or seopass_lighthouse_plan, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 says what can be targeted but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as needing a registered pack or when to use seopass_status instead.

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