technical-seo-mcp

by sourav2024

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Check clean-URL rules

check_url_structure

Read-only

Analyze URLs against clean-URL best practices: ≤60 characters, lowercase, hyphens, no special chars, minimal query parameters, and shallow hierarchy. Fully offline, no external requests.

Instructions

Analyze one or more URLs against clean-URL best practices: ≤ ~60 chars, lowercase, hyphens not underscores, no accents/special chars, no messy query params, shallow hierarchy. Offline — no requests are made.

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": {
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "check_url_structure"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`urls`	Yes	URLs to analyze

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the valuable behavioral detail that no requests are made (offline). It also enumerates the specific heuristics used, giving more transparency about what the analysis checks.

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 sentences: the first states the action and criteria, the second notes the offline behavior. It is tightly written with no redundant words or filler.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of the offline disclaimer, the description is sufficient. It could possibly mention what kind of result is returned, but this is not essential for a simple analysis tool.

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 covers the single parameter 'urls' completely (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add much. It mentions 'one or more URLs' which aligns with the schema, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what is already provided.

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 analyzes URLs against clean-URL best practices, listing specific criteria (length, lowercase, hyphens, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on URL structure rather than rendering, crawling, or other SEO aspects.

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 makes it clear when to use this tool (for checking URL structure) and highlights that it is offline, implying it can be used without making requests to the site. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use it, so it falls slightly 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.

Deploy Server