Skip to main content
Glama
qckdatabase

SEO/AEO Audit MCP

by qckdatabase
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v2.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetch_audit_data crawls websites, fetch_ai_visibility measures AI visibility, and render_audit_pdf generates reports. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (fetch_audit_data, fetch_ai_visibility, render_audit_pdf), making it easy for an agent to infer functionality from names.

    Tool Count5/5

    With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its domain. Each tool is necessary and well-justified, avoiding bloat or insufficiency.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set covers the full audit workflow: data collection (fetch_audit_data), AI visibility analysis (fetch_ai_visibility), and report generation (render_audit_pdf). No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 18 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Describes that it returns a JSON object and infers brand_name/industry from content, which adds behavioral context. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or destructive potential, but crawl is typically non-destructive.

    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?

    Three sentences, front-loaded with action and return type, no superfluous words. Each sentence adds value.

    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?

    For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, description thoroughly covers return object fields and inference logic. Could mention potential prerequisites like robots.txt restrictions, but overall sufficient for agent understanding.

    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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'url' already described as 'Full URL to audit'. Description adds example format but no new meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

    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 the tool crawls a website and fetches Ahrefs SEO metrics. It lists the specific return fields (crawl, ahrefs, brand_name, industry) and distinguishes from sibling tools by being the primary audit data fetcher.

    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?

    Explicitly states 'Call this first when auditing a site,' providing clear usage context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but sibling names imply different purposes.

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

  • 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 burden. It states it renders a PDF but does not disclose whether it is a pure read operation (no side effects), what happens on conflict (overwrite?), or any rate limits. The phrase 'pass through unchanged' is helpful but insufficient.

    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: first sentence states the purpose, second provides essential input guidance. No wasted words. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

    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 no output schema, the description explains the output (PDF file) and default path. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but for a simple render tool with clear inputs, it is reasonably complete. Could be improved by noting that all required inputs must be present.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema has 67% coverage (descriptions for 4 of 6 parameters). The description adds value by indicating that ahrefs/crawl should be passed exactly as returned, that ai_visibility comes from web search, and that narratives are user-written. This clarifies data provenance beyond schema.

    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's purpose: 'Render the completed SEO/AEO audit report as a PDF file.' It specifies the exact resources (ahrefs, crawl, ai_visibility, narratives) and their required form, effectively distinguishing it from sibling fetch tools.

    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 description explicitly tells the agent to pass through ahrefs/crawl from fetch_audit_data, ai_visibility from web search, and narratives written by the agent. It implies usage after data collection, though it could be clearer about what to do if data is missing.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool generates prompts, runs rankings, and returns specific metrics. It also notes the requirement for OPENAI_API_KEY. No contradictions, and the read-only nature is implied.

    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?

    Description is three sentences with clear structure: first states purpose, second outlines process, third gives usage tip. No unnecessary words, all sentences earn their 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?

    For a tool with no output schema and simple parameters, the description adequately explains the return values, dependencies, and prerequisites. Could mention potential errors or expected environment variable, but overall sufficient.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline of 3. Description adds value by linking brand and industry parameters to fetch_audit_data output, enhancing semantic understanding beyond schema descriptions.

    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's verb ('Measure') and resource ('brand visibility in AI/answer-engine results'), with specific details about the process and outputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on AI visibility rather than general auditing or PDF rendering.

    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?

    Provides explicit guidance to pass brand and industry from fetch_audit_data when available, implying a typical workflow. Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

seo-aeo-audit-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

seo-aeo-audit-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/qckdatabase/seo-aeo-audit-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server