Skip to main content
Glama
sparrow84001

SEO, AEO, GEO & Digital Marketing Audit + Safe Fix MCP Server

by sparrow84001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

seo_audit_technical

Audit technical SEO elements on a page or local file, checking canonical tags, robots meta, XML sitemap alignment, trailing slashes, mixed content, viewport, and charset declarations.

Instructions

Performs a Technical SEO audit on a page or URL, checking canonical tag consistency, robots meta tags (noindex/nofollow), XML sitemap alignment, trailing slash consistency, HTTP mixed content, viewport, and charset declarations.

USAGE GUIDELINES:

  • Use to audit indexing, crawlability, canonicalization, and technical header directives.

  • Do NOT use for on-page copy, headings, or keyword targeting; use 'seo_audit_onpage' instead.

  • Do NOT use for full site audits; use 'seo_audit_sitemap_multipage' or 'seo_generate_full_audit' instead.

BEHAVIORAL TRANSPARENCY:

  • Safe, read-only diagnostic evaluation.

  • Issues HTTP GET requests if given a URL; reads local file if given a file path. No disk modifications.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesTarget live URL (e.g. "https://example.com") or local file path to audit.
projectPathNoOptional project root path used to locate and cross-reference local sitemap.xml and robots.txt files.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectPath / description
      Previous value: -"Optional project root path for sitemap/robots discovery."New value: +"Optional project root path used to locate and cross-reference local sitemap.xml and robots.txt files."
    • changedInput schema / properties / target / description
      Previous value: -"Target file path or live URL."New value: +"Target live URL (e.g. \"https://example.com\") or local file path to audit."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Safe, read-only diagnostic evaluation', describes network behavior ('Issues HTTP GET requests if given a URL'), and confirms no side effects ('reads local file if given a file path. No disk modifications'). This is exactly the transparency agents need.

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 well-structured with clear labeled sections (USAGE GUIDELINES, BEHAVIORAL TRANSPARENCY) and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value: scope, exclusions, alternatives, and runtime behavior are each covered in compact form.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides strong coverage of purpose, usage, exclusions, and side effects. It does not describe the return format of the audit results, which is a minor gap, but is otherwise complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this 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 input schema already documents both 'target' and 'projectPath' accurately. The description adds a small behavioral nuance by noting HTTP GET for URLs versus local file reads, but it does not materially enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Performs a Technical SEO audit on a page or URL', then enumerates the exact dimensions checked (canonical, robots meta, sitemap alignment, trailing slash, mixed content, viewport, charset). This clearly distinguishes it from audit tools focused on content, performance, or local SEO.

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 USAGE GUIDELINES section explicitly states what the tool is for ('audit indexing, crawlability, canonicalization') and what it is not for, naming the sibling tools 'seo_audit_onpage', 'seo_audit_sitemap_multipage', and 'seo_generate_full_audit' as alternatives. This provides unambiguous routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools