seoradar-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v2.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
All tools have clearly distinct purposes: seo_audit triggers an audit and returns a summary, while get_audit_results fetches a detailed report by hash; the description explicitly directs agents to use both together. Monitoring tools (list/add/remove/get status) are cleanly separated by action and scope, and check_api_usage stands alone.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_api_usage, get_audit_results, list_monitored_urls, add_monitored_url, remove_monitored_url, get_monitoring_status). However, seo_audit breaks the pattern as a noun phrase rather than a verb_noun construction, creating a minor inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for an SEO audit and monitoring service. Each tool covers a distinct core operation with no redundancy or bloat, making the count appropriate for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core lifecycle for audits (run, retrieve details) and monitoring (add, list, get status, remove), plus API quota checking. Minor gaps like updating monitoring settings or listing historical audits exist, but agents can work around them without major failures.
Average 4.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 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
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds 'latest' status and score, but no further details on response structure or edge cases are provided.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence, immediately stating the action and scope. No redundant wording or unnecessary detail.
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 simple read tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is reasonably complete, mentioning the return content (status and score). Since no output schema exists, a bit more detail on return format could be useful, but the simplicity justifies this score.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a descriptive parameter ('Monitored URL id (from list_monitored_urls)'), so the description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'get the latest monitoring status and score for one monitored URL by its id', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_monitored_urls (listing) and add/remove operations.
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 clarifies it is for a single monitored URL by its id, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling list implies the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation. The description adds no extra context about permanence, side effects, or error behavior beyond the basic removal action. It is consistent with annotations but not richer.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately understandable.
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 simple one-parameter deletion tool, the description plus schema and annotations provide sufficient context. The lack of an output schema is not critical, but it could have mentioned what happens after removal (e.g., permanent deletion) for full clarity.
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 100% and the parameter 'id' already explains its origin ('from list_monitored_urls'). The description only says 'by its id', adding no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 action ('Remove'), the target resource ('a URL from SEO monitoring'), and the method ('by its id'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from siblings like add_monitored_url and list_monitored_urls.
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 implies usage as the inverse of adding a URL, and the schema parameter description ('from list_monitored_urls') provides prerequisite context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, but there are no alternative removal tools.
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 readOnlyHint=false indicating a mutation, the description adds useful behavioral context: the URL will be re-audited on a schedule and alerts on regressions will be sent. This goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent insight into the tool's ongoing effect.
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?
The description is two concise sentences that earn their place: the first states the core operation, the second explains the scheduling and alerts. No fluff or redundancy.
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 simple add operation with a well-documented schema and readOnly annotation, the description adequately explains the purpose and the ongoing behavior. It lacks only minor details like duplicate handling, but these are not essential for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; it only reiterates the concept of adding a URL.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a URL to SEO monitoring.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_monitored_urls or remove_monitored_url, and adds value by noting the scheduled re-audits and regression alerts, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to start monitoring a URL. It differentiates from one-time audit tools like seo_audit by mentioning ongoing schedule and alerts. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying the return content (pass/warn/fail statuses, messages, recommendations, tips). It does not discuss side effects or edge cases, but none are expected for a read-only fetch with a single required parameter.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and then expands on the output. No wasted words or repetition beyond the necessary.
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?
Given the simplicity (one required parameter), the presence of readOnly annotations, and the detailed description of the report contents, the description is complete enough for an agent to successfully invoke the tool and understand what it returns. No output schema exists, but the description fills that gap.
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?
The schema already fully documents the 'hash' parameter with the description 'Audit hash from a previous seo_audit call' (100% coverage). The tool description only repeats 'by hash' without adding new syntax or format details, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gets a full detailed SEO audit report by hash, enumerating the contents (check statuses, messages, recommendations, tips). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like seo_audit (which presumably creates audits) by focusing on retrieval of existing results.
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 implies when to use this tool: after a seo_audit call, using the returned hash. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for retrieving audit results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns each URL's 'latest status and score,' which is useful. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or ordering. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate for the added context.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. It states the action, resource, and returned data without any filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.
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 simple list tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the user exactly what it does and what information is included (status and score). The readOnlyHint annotation provides safety context, and the tool's scope is fully covered.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is empty. The description adds relevant context about what is returned, which is sufficient.
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 a specific action ('List all URLs') and the resource ('URLs you have under SEO monitoring'), and specifies what is included ('latest status and score'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_monitored_url/remove_monitored_url by focusing on listing, and from get_audit_results by focusing on monitored URLs rather than audit results.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to see all monitored URLs and their status/score. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident and distinct from siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 3.
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?
The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the exact quota information provided (tier, daily limit, used today, remaining count). This gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect without contradicting the read-only annotation.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and immediately lists expected outputs. It contains no fluff or redundancy.
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?
With no parameters and a read-only annotation, the description provides the key information an agent needs: what the tool checks and what metrics it returns. It is appropriately complete for a simple quota-checking tool, even without an output schema.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the description does not need to clarify parameter semantics. The description's focus on the return metrics directly addresses what the agent will receive, which is sufficient given the absence of parameters.
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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource (SEO Radar API quota) and the specific metrics returned (tier, daily limit, used today, remaining count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_audit or add_monitored_url, which focus on audits and URL monitoring.
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 implies use whenever you need to monitor API quota, and the tool is clearly distinct from siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it does not reach the highest bar for usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: cached results return instantly, new URLs take 10-30s with automatic polling, and the return includes an overall score, category scores, and an AI summary. This is valuable performance and outcome information not present in the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations. No contradiction.
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?
The description is three concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second covers returns and performance, the third points to a sibling for more detail. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns (score, category scores, AI summary), performance expectations, and the follow-up path using get_audit_results. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, and to interpret the result.
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?
The input schema already fully describes the 'url' parameter with type, format, and an example. The description mentions 'any URL' but doesn't add additional semantics beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a comprehensive SEO audit on any URL.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by mentioning 'Use get_audit_results with the returned hash for the full per-check breakdown,' clarifying its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly directs users to an alternative: 'Use get_audit_results with the returned hash for the full per-check breakdown,' providing clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate (summary audit) versus the sibling for detailed checks. This fulfills the alternative guidance criterion.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![seoradar-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sikulovi-s-r-o/seoradar-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sikulovi-s-r-o/seoradar-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![seoradar-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sikulovi-s-r-o/seoradar-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sikulovi-s-r-o/seoradar-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/sikulovi-s-r-o/seoradar-mcp'

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