Website Intelligence MCP

analyze_hreflang

Validate and inspect a webpage's hreflang declarations to detect language or regional targeting errors that impact international SEO.

Instructions

Analyze hreflang declarations 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_hreflang"
  }
}

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 are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Analyze' implies a non-destructive read of a remote page, but the description says nothing about network fetching, authentication, rate limits, or what the analysis reports. Only the minimal read-only implication is conveyed.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, and the resource is front-loaded. It is concise to the point of under-specification rather than bloated.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter description coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about inputs' meaning and results. For a tool whose only argument is a URL and whose purpose is analysis, more detail about what is checked and returned is warranted.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the single required 'url' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The phrase 'of a webpage' hints that the URL targets an HTML page, but it adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema's format: uri.

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 resource ('hreflang declarations of a webpage') with a generic but adequate verb, so it distinguishes this tool from siblings like analyze_canonical or analyze_lang within the analyze_* family. It is not a tautology, but it does not describe scope, depth, or what output the analysis yields.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. Usage is only inferable from the shared analyze_* naming convention, which is weak guidance for an agent choosing among ~27 siblings.

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