Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LeadIntel

LeadIntel

by rushikesheleven
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

check_seo

Check a website's on-page technical SEO health, including title tags, meta descriptions, headings, alt text, canonicals, robots directives, sitemaps, and Open Graph tags, to score issues and prioritize fixes.

Instructions

    Run a technical on-page SEO audit on a business website.

    Evaluates fundamental search engine optimization signals:
    - Missing or duplicate title tags and length bounds.
    - Missing or suboptimal meta descriptions.
    - Missing H1 or multiple H1 heading tags.
    - Missing image alt attributes and overall image alt coverage percentage.
    - Canonical URL link specification.
    - Meta robots directives (noindex/nofollow).
    - Availability of robots.txt and sitemap.xml.
    - Open Graph tags for social preview readiness.
    - Internal link count and page weight.

    Output:
    - SEO score from 0 to 100.
    - Detailed checklist breakdown.
    - Specific prioritized issues (errors, warnings, info).
    - Actionable recommendations.

    Notice:
    This is an on-page technical SEO diagnostic tool and not an official
    Google ranking assessment or proprietary PageRank score.

    Args:
        url: The target website URL (e.g. 'https://example.com').

    Returns:
        Structured SEO audit report.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates every signal checked, discloses the 0-100 scoring plus prioritized errors/warnings/info, and sets an explicit expectation about what the score is not. It omits operational traits an agent would want — that it fetches the live page, how long it takes, and whether results are cached or rate-limited.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the bulleted checklist is scannable and well organized. There is redundancy between the 'Output' bullet list and the 'Returns' line ('Structured SEO audit report'), and the Args/Returns sections are stock docstring boilerplate that the schema already provides.

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?

For a single-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything essential: what is evaluated, what the score means, what the report contains, and the key limitation. Only minor operational details are absent, and the output schema covers return-value structure.

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 0% on the single url parameter, so the description must compensate; it adds a format hint via the example 'https://example.com' and the phrase 'target website URL'. It says nothing about whether scheme, trailing paths, subdomains, or non-resolving URLs are accepted, so the semantics are only partially filled in.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('Run a technical on-page SEO audit on a business website') and the nine-item checklist pins down the scope precisely. It never names the sibling analyze_website or explains how this differs from it, so the agent must infer the boundary between a general website analysis and this SEO-specific audit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Notice' clarifies a when-not ('not an official Google ranking assessment or proprietary PageRank score'), which prevents misuse as a ranking predictor. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over analyze_website or other siblings, and no stated prerequisites such as whether the site must be publicly reachable or HTML-based.

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