Website Intelligence MCP

analyze_canonical

Inspect a webpage's canonical URL to verify the preferred page version, fix duplicate-content SEO issues, and confirm metadata accuracy.

Instructions

Analyze the canonical URL of a webpage

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": "analyze_canonical"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't specify what the analysis returns, whether the tool fetches the page or just parses the URL, what error conditions exist (e.g., missing canonical tag), or any behavioral traits.

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?

Single short sentence, front-loaded and efficient. No wasted words, but also very sparse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It leaves the agent guessing about the analysis output and the exact semantics of the 'url' parameter.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'url'. It doesn't clarify whether the URL is the page to check or the canonical URL itself, nor any format expectations beyond the schema's 'uri' type.

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?

States a specific verb (Analyze) and resource (canonical URL of a webpage). Distinguishable from siblings like analyze_title or analyze_meta, though the verb 'analyze' is shared across all siblings, so the distinguishing factor is the 'canonical URL' resource.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain what analyzing the canonical URL entails or when an agent should invoke it.

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