Skip to main content
Glama
sparrow84001

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

by sparrow84001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

seo_suggest_related_ecosystem

Analyze a website to identify its market vertical, benchmark competitor archetypes, find high-authority backlink and directory targets, and build keyword topic clusters for expanded organic reach.

Instructions

Analyzes a website to infer its market vertical, benchmark competitor archetypes, identify high-authority backlink and directory targets, and build keyword topic clusters.

USAGE GUIDELINES:

  • Use to expand organic reach, plan off-page directory submissions, and identify competitor benchmarks.

  • Do NOT use for on-page code repairs; use 'seo_generate_code_fix' instead.

  • Do NOT use for protocol validation; use 'seo_test_web_mcp' instead.

BEHAVIORAL TRANSPARENCY:

  • Safe, read-only ecosystem analysis. Makes no modifications to codebase or remote sites.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesWebsite codebase directory path (e.g. ".") or live URL (e.g. "https://example.com").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / target / description
      Previous value: -"Directory path to the website codebase or a live URL (https://...) to analyze."New value: +"Website codebase directory path (e.g. \".\") or live URL (e.g. \"https://example.com\")."
  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 provided, so the description carries the full safety burden. It explicitly says 'Safe, read-only ecosystem analysis. Makes no modifications to codebase or remote sites,' which directly addresses side effects and mutability concerns.

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: a one-sentence purpose, three scoped bullets for usage, and a one-line behavioral note. Every section adds distinct information with no redundant 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?

For a complex multi-output tool with no output schema, the description lists what results will be produced (vertical, competitor benchmarks, backlink/directory targets, topic clusters) and gives clear usage boundaries. It stops short of specifying return format or ordering, but invocation is still unambiguous with a single documented parameter.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter, target, is described as a website codebase directory path. The free-text description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 action and resource: 'Analyzes a website' and enumerates concrete deliverables (market vertical, competitor archetypes, backlink/directory targets, keyword topic clusters). This clearly differentiates it from the audit-focused siblings and from seo_generate_code_fix and seo_test_web_mcp.

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?

A dedicated USAGE GUIDELINES section states when to use the tool ('expand organic reach, plan off-page directory submissions, identify competitor benchmarks') and names explicit alternatives for excluded cases: 'seo_generate_code_fix' for on-page code repairs and 'seo_test_web_mcp' for protocol validation.

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