Seonix SEO MCP
OfficialThe Seonix SEO MCP server lets AI agents perform read-only, platform-agnostic SEO, GEO/AEO, and speed auditing on any publicly reachable website — proposing and previewing fixes without ever modifying the site.
audit_site — Crawl up to 100 pages via sitemap.xml and run ~75 checks across three pillars:
SEO: Title tags, meta descriptions, heading structure, image alt text, canonical URLs, Open Graph, viewport, mixed content, noindex, soft-404s, internal links, duplicate titles/descriptions, orphaned pages, redirect chains, and more
GEO/AEO (AI-search visibility): JSON-LD structured data, AI-restrictive meta robots,
/llms.txt, robots.txt AI-bot blocking (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, etc.), sitemaplastmodcoverageSpeed: HTML heuristics (render-blocking resources, image dimensions, lazy loading, DOM size, page weight) and optional Google PageSpeed Insights / Core Web Vitals (LCP, CLS, INP, TBT, TTFB) when a
PAGESPEED_API_KEYis configured
Returns per-pillar scores (0–100) with health labels (good, needs work, poor) and structured issues with code, severity, evidence, why, target_state, and recommendation.
speed_audit — Focused speed-only audit of a single URL, including HTML heuristics and optional Lighthouse/Core Web Vitals data.
propose_fixes — Generate concrete, minimal fix proposals per issue for a given page, classified as:
meta-inject/content-replace: Deterministic edits (e.g., inject OG tags, fix heading hierarchy)needs-value: Fixes requiring a human-supplied value (alt text, og:image)manual: Content/structure decisions requiring human judgmentinfra: Server/CDN/robots.txt/sitemap fixes
preview_fix — Dry-run any fix proposal against the page's current HTML and get a safety verdict (pass, idempotent, blocked, manual) with a before/after diff — still without writing anything.
Key traits: 100% read-only, no credentials required, CMS-neutral recommendations (no Yoast/WordPress-specific advice), works on any stack (WordPress, Shopify, static, custom).
Integrates with Google PageSpeed Insights API to provide Core Web Vitals and Lighthouse performance opportunities for audited pages.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Seonix SEO MCPaudit https://example.com and tell me the top SEO and speed problems with how to fix each."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Seonix SEO MCP
A free, open-source MCP server that lets any AI agent audit ANY website for SEO, GEO/AEO, and speed problems — and tell you how it should be.
Point Claude Desktop, Cursor, Cline, or any other MCP client at this server and ask it to "audit https://example.com and tell me the top SEO and speed problems with how to fix each." The agent crawls the site, runs the checks, and relays a plain-language report: what's wrong, why it matters, and the target state for each issue.
Platform-agnostic — works on any site: WordPress, Shopify, custom, static, anything reachable over HTTP. No CMS assumptions.
Read-only — it reports, it does not fix. The audit never modifies your site. It shows problems and gives CMS-neutral recommendations ("the page should have a unique
<title>of 30–60 chars that includes the primary keyword"). Whether and how to fix is your decision.Safe-fix advisor — beyond reporting, it can propose a concrete minimal fix per issue and dry-run it against the page (a structural regression gate) so you see exactly what would change — still without writing anything.
Three pillars in one pass — SEO, GEO/AEO (AI-search visibility), and speed (Core Web Vitals + performance).
AI-agnostic — works with any MCP client. No vendor lock-in.
Free & open-source — MIT licensed.
Dependency-light — TypeScript, the official
@modelcontextprotocol/sdk, and Node's built-infetch. One runtime dependency.
The checks mirror the production Seonix scanner — same issue codes, severities, and thresholds — and every finding carries a recommendation ported from the Seonix remediation catalog, rewritten to be platform-neutral.
Note on writing fixes. This server is read-only: it audits, proposes fixes, and dry-runs them — it never writes to your site, and needs no credentials. Earlier versions shipped seven WordPress write tools (
wp_update_content,wp_set_media_alt, …); they are archived insrc/extras/wordpress-fixers.ts(not part of the server) and are the basis for a future opt-in, per-platform applier — which will require a true visual-regression gate and explicit credentials before it touches anything.
What it does
The auditor discovers pages from sitemap.xml, fetches each page's HTML, and reports problems across three pillars. The AI client summarizes the structured result for you.
Tools
Tool | Auth | What it does |
| none (read-only) | Audit a whole site for SEO + GEO/AEO + speed. Discovers pages via |
| none (read-only) | Speed-only audit of one page. Always runs the HTML speed heuristics; with a PageSpeed key it also returns Core Web Vitals + the top Lighthouse opportunities. |
| none (read-only) | Safe-fix advisor for one page. Audits it, then proposes a concrete, minimal fix per issue — classified |
| none (read-only) | Dry-run a single proposal against the page's current HTML. Returns a regression-gate verdict — |
None of these tools modify anything. The audit reports; the advisor proposes and dry-runs. Writing a fix is a separate, opt-in applier layer (WordPress first) that is not part of this server (see src/extras/wordpress-fixers.ts).
What audit_site checks
Around 75 checks across four scopes. The codes, severities and thresholds mirror the production Seonix scanner.
SEO — per page
Title — missing / > 60 / < 30 characters / undecoded HTML entities (
&,') / lowercase start (en, de, ru; brand names like iPhone excluded).Meta description — missing / > 160 / < 50 characters.
Headings — missing H1 / multiple H1 / heading starts with an emoji / heading > 100 chars (likely a paragraph) / a heading before the first H1 / broken hierarchy (a skipped level).
Images — empty/missing
alt(with the offending<img>snippet as evidence).Content & indexability — thin content (< 300 words) / no internal links /
noindexset / page over 3 MB / soft-404 (200 status but an error-page title + thin body).Mixed content —
http://resources on anhttps://page.Canonical — canonical URL mismatch.
Viewport — missing
<meta name="viewport">.Open Graph — missing OG tags / missing
og:image.
SEO — cross-page & crawl graph
Duplicates — duplicate titles / duplicate meta descriptions (paginated archives excluded) / trailing-slash duplicate URLs.
Boilerplate — the same H2-H6 heading repeated on > 50 % of pages (needs ≥ 10 pages).
Links — broken internal links (pointing at a crawled 4xx/5xx URL) / orphaned pages (no incoming internal link) / crawl depth > 4 clicks from the homepage.
Redirects — chain ends in an error / redirect loop / more than 2 hops.
HTTP — 4xx / 5xx responses.
SEO — site level (robots.txt & sitemap)
robots.txt — missing / blocks all crawling (Googlebot at root) / blocks the sitemap path.
sitemap — unreachable / invalid XML / empty / index references unfetchable children / not declared in robots.txt.
GEO / AEO (AI-search visibility)
JSON-LD —
Articleauthor not aPerson(resolves@idreferences so Yoast-style sites aren't false positives) / missingdatePublished/ duplicate schema type / conflicting data across blocks / unrecognized@type(validated against the full 1 466-type schema.org vocabulary) / incompletePerson(name only) /FAQPageorHowToschema whose questions/steps aren't visible on the page / malformed or missing structured data.Social meta — incomplete Open Graph (2+ of
og:title/og:description/og:image/og:url/twitter:cardmissing).AI-restrictive meta — page opts out of AI engines via
nosnippet/noai/noimageai(meta robots orX-Robots-Tag)./llms.txt— missing, or invalid (needs a#title + ≥ 1 Markdown link + ≥ 100 chars).robots.txt— blocks AI crawlers (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended, PerplexityBot, OAI-SearchBot, anthropic-ai, ChatGPT-User, CCBot, Bytespider, Amazonbot, Applebot-Extended, meta-externalagent).Sitemap freshness — fewer than 80 % of sitemap URLs carry a
<lastmod>.Pagination — indexable paginated archive subpages that should be
noindex.
Speed
Always on (every fetched page, no key needed) — HTML heuristics:
Render-blocking
<script>(noasync/defer) and<link rel=stylesheet>in<head>.<img>withoutwidth/height(layout-shift / CLS risk).Below-the-fold
<img>withoutloading="lazy".Very large inline
<style>/<script>blocks.Heavy HTML document weight.
Excessive DOM node count.
When PAGESPEED_API_KEY is set — Google PageSpeed Insights (Lighthouse), on a small sample of pages:
Performance score + Core Web Vitals (LCP, CLS, INP, TBT, TTFB, FCP).
Top Lighthouse opportunities mapped to issue codes: render-blocking resources, unused CSS, unused JavaScript, properly-size / efficiently-encode / next-gen images, offscreen images, text compression, slow server response (TTFB), excessive main-thread work, large DOM, short cache lifetime. Severity is banded by estimated time savings, mirroring the Seonix scanner.
Output shape
audit_site returns:
{
"site_url": "https://example.com",
"pages_scanned": 25,
"sitemap_source": "https://example.com/sitemap.xml",
"speed": {
"enabled_pagespeed": true, // false when no PAGESPEED_API_KEY
"pages_measured": 3,
"measurements": [ // one per PSI-sampled page
{ "url": "...", "strategy": "mobile", "performanceScore": 74,
"lcpSeconds": 2.9, "cls": 0.04, "inpMs": 180, "tbtMs": 320, "ttfbMs": 410, "fcpSeconds": 1.8 }
]
},
"summary": {
"seo": { "score": 68, "health_label": "needs work", "issue_count": 8 },
"aeo": { "score": 94, "health_label": "good", "issue_count": 3 },
"speed": { "score": 82, "health_label": "good", "issue_count": 7 }
},
"issue_count": 18,
"issues_by_severity": { "error": 1, "warning": 9, "notice": 8 },
"issues": [
{
"code": "title_too_long",
"category": "seo", // "seo" | "aeo" | "speed"
"severity": "warning",
"url": "https://example.com/pricing",
"evidence": { "length": 78, "title": "..." },
"why": "Search engines typically display only about 60 characters of a title...",
"target_state": "The <title> is 60 characters or fewer and leads with the important keywords.",
"recommendation": "Shorten the <title> to 60 characters or fewer while keeping the primary keyword near the beginning..."
}
// ... every issue carries why / target_state / recommendation
]
}health_labelisgood(score ≥ 80),needs work(≥ 50), orpoor(< 50).The speed pillar score is the median Lighthouse performance score across measured pages when PSI ran, otherwise a heuristic over the always-on speed checks.
Page discovery reads
sitemap.xml(polite, ~1 request/second, default 25 pages, max 100) and fetches each URL. PSI is slow, so by default it only samples a few pages (homepage + up to 3 representative pages); the always-on HTML heuristics run on every fetched page.
Related MCP server: @metricspot/mcp-server
Install
Requires Node 18+ (uses global fetch).
git clone https://github.com/seonix-ai/seonix-mcp.git
cd seonix-mcp
npm install
npm run buildThis produces dist/index.js — the executable MCP server.
Configuration
The auditor needs no configuration — it works on any public site out of the box.
Variable | Required | Purpose |
| optional | A Google PageSpeed Insights API key. When set, |
Getting a key takes a minute (enable the PageSpeed Insights API in a Google Cloud project and create an API key). It is free for typical audit volumes. PSI calls are slow (10–30s each), which is why the audit samples only a few pages by default — tune the sample with the
speed_sampleargument.
Add it to your AI client
Both clients launch the server with node dist/index.js. Use the absolute path to dist/index.js.
Claude Desktop
Edit claude_desktop_config.json (macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"seonix-seo": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/seonix-seo-mcp/dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"PAGESPEED_API_KEY": "your-google-pagespeed-key"
}
}
}
}The env block is optional — omit it entirely to run with HTML speed heuristics only. Restart Claude Desktop after editing.
Cursor
Edit ~/.cursor/mcp.json (or Cursor Settings → MCP → Add new server):
{
"mcpServers": {
"seonix-seo": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/seonix-seo-mcp/dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"PAGESPEED_API_KEY": "your-google-pagespeed-key"
}
}
}
}The same mcpServers shape works for Cline, Continue, and most other MCP clients.
Example prompts
Once connected, just talk to your agent:
"Audit https://example.com and tell me the top SEO and speed problems with how to fix each."
"Run a full audit of my site and give me the per-pillar health (SEO, AEO, speed) plus the 10 most severe issues."
"Check https://example.com for AI-search visibility — is anything blocking ChatGPT/Claude/Perplexity, and is the structured data in good shape?"
"Speed-audit my pricing page and explain the Core Web Vitals and what's hurting them."
"Crawl up to 50 pages of my site and list every page missing a meta description, with the recommended length."
"Propose fixes for https://example.com/, then dry-run each one and tell me which are safe to apply and which need a manual decision."
A typical flow the agent runs on its own:
audit_site→ gets the per-pillar summary + a flat list of issues, each withwhy/target_state/recommendation.It groups the issues (by pillar, by severity, or by page) and explains the highest-impact ones in plain language.
You decide what to change — the MCP never touches your site.
Safe-fix advisor (propose_fixes + preview_fix)
The auditor tells you what's wrong. The advisor goes one step further — here's the exact change, and here's proof it stays in its lane — while still writing nothing.
propose_fixes({ url }) audits the page and returns one proposal per issue:
{
"fixId": "fix_missing_og_tags_5",
"code": "missing_og_tags",
"url": "https://example.com/",
"family": "meta-inject", // meta-inject | content-replace | needs-value | manual | infra
"visibility": "invisible", // visible | invisible | unknown
"whatChanges": "Adds the missing Open Graph / Twitter card tags to <head>…",
"clears": ["missing_og_tags"],
"edit": { "type": "insert-head", "marker": "property=\"og:title\"", "snippet": "<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"…\">" },
"safetyNotes": ["Inserted into <head> only; the page body is untouched.", "Idempotent — applying it again is a no-op."]
}Deterministic fixes carry an exact
edit: inject viewport / Open Graph tags, decode double-encoded<title>entities, strip a leading heading emoji, rewritehttp://→https://, retag a heading that skips a level (preserving its class).needs-valuefixes are mechanical but require a value only a human or image-aware model can supply (alt text, publish dates,og:image).manualissues (thin content, duplicate titles, a missing H1) are a content/structure decision — guidance only.infraissues (robots.txt, sitemap, redirects, speed) live in the server/CDN, not the page markup.
preview_fix({ fix }) takes a proposal back and dry-runs it against the page's current HTML, returning a regression-gate verdict:
Verdict | Meaning |
| The edit is localized — it touches only its intended region (e.g. one |
| Already applied — applying again is a no-op. |
| The target is ambiguous (e.g. two identical headings) or missing. An automatic edit is unsafe — do it manually. |
| Needs a value, or lives in infrastructure — not auto-previewable. |
The gate is structural (does the edit stay in its region?), not pixel-level. A true visual-regression gate (computed-style / screenshot diff) and the actual write step require rendering and credentials, and belong to the opt-in per-platform applier — they are deliberately not in this read-only server.
How scoring works
SEO and AEO pillar scores start at 100 and subtract weighted demerits per issue (error > warning > notice), floored at 0. This is a transparent heuristic so an AI client can relay a single number to a human — it is not the exact dashboard algorithm.
Speed pillar score is the median Lighthouse performance score across the PSI-measured pages (the same basis Seonix uses for its speed pillar). When no PageSpeed key is configured, it falls back to the issue-based heuristic over the always-on speed checks.
Every issue still carries its own
severity, so you can rank by severity regardless of the rolled-up scores.
Recommendations are platform-neutral
Recommendations live in src/recommendations.ts, ported from the Seonix remediation catalog but deliberately rewritten to be CMS-agnostic. You will never see "edit the Yoast field" or "change the WordPress block" — instead you get target states like "the page should have a unique <title> of 30–60 chars that includes the primary keyword" and imperative, vendor-neutral guidance that applies to any stack.
Development
npm run build # compile TypeScript → dist/
npm start # run the built server on stdio
npm test # build, then run the unit tests (node:test, no extra deps)src/audit.ts— all audit checks as pure, dependency-free functions over fetched HTML (SEO + AEO + cross-page + crawl-graph + speed heuristics) plus the PageSpeed-Insights parsing/mapping. Easy to unit test.src/schema-types.ts— the generated set of valid schema.org@typevalues (1 466 identifiers) used by the unrecognized-type check.src/recommendations.ts— the platform-neutral recommendation catalog (issue code →why/target_state/recommendation).src/fixes.ts— the read-only safe-fix advisor:proposeFixes(issue → concrete edit + classification) andpreviewFix(static dry-run + structural regression gate). Pure and platform-agnostic.src/index.ts— the MCP server:ListTools+CallTool, site discovery + robots/sitemap crawlability checks, page fetching (manual redirect following for the redirect-chain checks), cross-page / crawl-graph aggregation, PSI sampling, thepropose_fixes/preview_fixadvisor tools, and result assembly.src/extras/wordpress-fixers.ts— the archived WordPress write tools. Not imported by the server; kept for the record (the future opt-in applier layer).test/audit.test.mjs,test/fixes.test.mjs— unit tests for the checks and the fix advisor (run withnpm test).
Smoke test (JSON-RPC over stdio)
You can drive the server directly:
npm run build
# initialize → tools/list → tools/call audit_site, piped over stdin(see the round-trip example in the project history — audit_site returns issues with recommendations and a speed section even without a PageSpeed key).
License
MIT. Free to use, modify, and distribute.
Available Tools
4 toolsaudit_siteA
READ-ONLY, platform-agnostic site auditor. Works on ANY website (WordPress, Shopify, custom, static — anything). Audits SEO, GEO/AEO and speed: it SHOWS problems and gives CMS-neutral 'how it should be' recommendations — it does NOT modify the site; you decide whether/how to fix. Discovers pages via sitemap.xml (polite ~1 req/sec, default 25 / max 100 pages), fetches each page's HTML (following redirects so it can flag redirect chains), and runs ~75 checks: PER PAGE — title missing/length/HTML-entities/lowercase-start, meta description missing/length, image alt text, H1 count, emoji/overlong/before-H1/broken-hierarchy headings, low word count, no internal links, noindex, large page, soft-404, mixed content, canonical, viewport, Open Graph, structured-data validity; GEO/AEO — JSON-LD Article author-not-Person / missing dates / duplicate-type / conflicting-data / unrecognized @type / incomplete Person, FAQ & HowTo schema not visible on-page, incomplete social tags, AI-restrictive meta robots, /llms.txt, robots.txt AI-bot blocking, sitemap lastmod coverage; CROSS-PAGE / CRAWL — duplicate titles & meta descriptions, trailing-slash duplicates, boilerplate repeated headings, broken internal links, orphaned pages, crawl depth, redirect chains (broken/loop/too-many); SITE — robots.txt missing/blocks-all/blocks-sitemap-path, sitemap unreachable/invalid/empty/index-children-failed/not-declared-in-robots; SPEED — always-on HTML heuristics (render-blocking head resources, images missing width/height, un-lazy offscreen images, large inline blocks, page weight, DOM size), plus Google PageSpeed Insights (Core Web Vitals + Lighthouse opportunities) on a sample of pages when PAGESPEED_API_KEY is set. Returns a per-pillar summary {seo, aeo, speed} (score + health_label + issue count) and a flat issues[] where each item = {code, category, severity, url, evidence, why, target_state, recommendation}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_url | Yes | The site to audit, e.g. https://example.com | |
| max_pages | No | Max pages to crawl from the sitemap (default 25, cap 100). | |
| speed_sample | No | How many pages to measure with PageSpeed Insights (homepage + representative pages). Default 3. Ignored unless PAGESPEED_API_KEY is set; HTML speed heuristics always run on every fetched page. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it is read-only, polices crawl rate (~1 req/sec), does not modify the site, and conditionally uses PageSpeed Insights. It details the types of checks and the structure of the response (summary and issues array), going well beyond typical descriptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is comprehensive yet well-organized, with clear sections for different check categories. It front-loads the core purpose and every sentence adds value, avoiding redundancy. Despite length, it remains focused and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return schema in detail (per-pillar summary, issues array with fields like code, category, severity, etc.) and covers edge cases (e.g., conditional API key usage, redirect following).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning by explaining defaults (max_pages default 25, cap 100), conditions (speed_sample ignored unless API key set), and the expected format for site_url. This provides context beyond the schema's basic descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'READ-ONLY, platform-agnostic site auditor' and enumerates the audit categories (SEO, GEO/AEO, speed). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `speed_audit` or `preview_fix`, though the comprehensive scope implies it is the primary audit tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that the tool works on any website and is read-only, providing clear context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `speed_audit` for speed-only audits), nor does it give explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
preview_fixA
READ-ONLY dry-run of a single fix proposal (the object returned by propose_fixes) against the page's CURRENT HTML. Applies the edit statically — no rendering, no writing — and returns a regression-gate verdict: 'pass' (the edit is localized and touches only its intended region), 'idempotent' (already applied — a no-op), 'blocked' (the target is ambiguous or missing, so an automatic edit is unsafe), or 'manual' (needs a value, or lives in infrastructure). Includes the before/after of the affected region. This is a STRUCTURAL safety gate (does the edit stay in its region?), not a pixel/visual gate. NEVER modifies the site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fix | Yes | A fix proposal object exactly as returned in propose_fixes.proposals[]. Must include url and edit. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: read-only, no rendering, no writing, returns specific verdict categories (pass, idempotent, blocked, manual), and includes before/after. It clarifies the scope (structural safety gate, not pixel/visual). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tightened. It is well-organized with important details upfront.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (verdict categories and before/after). It covers safety, action, and outcome. No gaps remain for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'fix' has a schema description stating it must include url and edit, which adds clarity beyond the schema's type definition. This helps an agent understand the required structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is a read-only dry-run of a single fix proposal against current HTML. It specifies the action (preview), the resource (fix proposal), and the context (page's HTML). It distinguishes itself from siblings like propose_fixes and audit_site by focusing on validation before applying edits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (after propose_fixes to validate a fix) by referring to the object returned by propose_fixes. It also explicitly states the tool never modifies the site and is a structural safety gate. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
propose_fixesA
READ-ONLY safe-fix ADVISOR for ONE page. Audits the page, then proposes a concrete, minimal fix for each issue: what to change, whether the change is VISIBLE or INVISIBLE to visitors, which issue code(s) it clears, and safety notes. Deterministic fixes carry an exact edit (inject viewport / Open Graph tags, decode HTML entities in the title, strip a leading heading emoji, rewrite http:// → https://, retag a heading that skips a level). Others are classified: 'needs-value' (alt text, dates, og:image — mechanical but a value must be supplied), 'manual' (a content/structure decision, guidance only), or 'infra' (server / robots.txt / sitemap / CDN / speed — not page markup). It NEVER writes anything. Pass any returned proposal to preview_fix to dry-run it before deciding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The exact page URL to propose fixes for, e.g. https://example.com/pricing | |
| codes | No | Optional: only propose fixes for these issue codes (e.g. ["missing_viewport","title_html_entities"]). |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states it is read-only, never writes, and details fix classifications (deterministic, needs-value, manual, infra) and their nature. It lacks auth or rate limit info, but provides substantial behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with key identity ('READ-ONLY safe-fix ADVISOR for ONE page') and each subsequent sentence adds substantive detail. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns: concrete fix proposals with change details, visibility, issue codes cleared, safety notes, and exact edits or classification. It also mentions next steps (preview_fix), making it self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little to parameter meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'codes' is optional but does not elaborate on value formats or constraints. However, the fix classification indirectly informs possible values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a READ-ONLY safe-fix advisor for ONE page, with a specific verb ('audits', 'proposes') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on one page and mentioning preview_fix for dry-run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly recommends passing proposals to preview_fix before deciding, and states 'NEVER writes anything' to advise on safe usage. It provides clear context, though lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like audit_site.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
speed_auditA
READ-ONLY speed-only audit of ONE page. Always runs the HTML speed heuristics on the fetched page; when PAGESPEED_API_KEY is set it also runs Google PageSpeed Insights (mobile) for that page and returns Core Web Vitals (LCP, CLS, INP, TBT, TTFB) plus the top Lighthouse opportunities. Every finding carries category 'speed' and a 'how it should be' recommendation. Use audit_site for a whole-site, multi-pillar audit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The exact page URL to measure, e.g. https://example.com/pricing |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses it is READ-ONLY, lists all activities (HTML heuristics always, optional PageSpeed Insights), and specifies return elements (Core Web Vitals, Lighthouse opportunities, recommendations with category 'speed'). No annotations exist, so the description fully informs behavioral traits without contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three well-structured sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states core purpose and nature, second details functionality and conditional behavior, third provides alternative. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all needed context: tool action, scope, optional dependencies, return types, and relationship to sibling tool. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'url' parameter described as 'The exact page URL to measure'. The description adds no further meaning about the URL parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs a 'READ-ONLY speed-only audit of ONE page', specifying the resource (page URL) and action (audit). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'audit_site' which handles whole-site, multi-pillar audits. The verb 'audit' combined with 'speed-only' and 'ONE page' provides precise purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (single page speed audit) and when to use alternative ('Use audit_site for a whole-site, multi-pillar audit'). Also notes conditional behavior based on PAGESPEED_API_KEY setting, guiding the agent on prerequisites and expected output variations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
TDQS
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: site-wide audit, per-page fix proposal, dry-run preview, and speed-only audit. No overlapping purposes; an agent can easily select the appropriate tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (audit_site, preview_fix, propose_fixes, speed_audit). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verbs.
Four tools is appropriate for an SEO analysis MCP server: site audit, fix proposal, fix preview, and speed audit. The scope is focused and each tool earns its place.
The tool set covers the full analysis workflow: comprehensive audit, targeted fix proposals, safety preview, and speed-specific audit. No obvious gaps given the read-only advisory nature.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Free SEO, GEO, and AEO audits: analyze any page or domain, AI-crawler access, agent readiness.
AEO audit: score any website 0-100 for AI visibility. Checks schema, meta, content, AI crawlers.
Run SEO + AI-visibility (GEO) audits from Claude, Cursor & other AI clients.
Scan any website's AI readiness: AI search visibility and AI agent usability. Free, no auth.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to perform instant SEO, performance, and security audits of any website through the Model Context Protocol. It provides comprehensive analysis without requiring API keys or configuration.115MIT

@metricspot/mcp-serverofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceExposes SEO and AI-readability audit tools to AI agents, enabling one-shot anonymous audits or full authenticated audits with PDF reports and organic traffic data.73MIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to crawl and audit websites for SEO issues, returning structured JSON reports with errors, warnings, and key statistics.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to perform instant SEO audits, check robots.txt, sitemaps, and AI crawler access for any URL without API keys.MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/seonix-ai/seonix-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server