Skip to main content
Glama

Technical SEO of one page

seo_audit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check one page for technical SEO problems—missing metadata, heading structure, canonical, hreflang, robots.txt, sitemap validity, and broken internal links—to find why it isn't indexed.

Instructions

Reads one page and reports the technical SEO facts a maintenance retainer is judged on: title and meta description, heading structure, canonical, Open Graph, hreflang, language, viewport, images with no alt text, the state of robots.txt and the sitemap, and which internal links are broken. The sitemap is checked against the rules of the sitemaps protocol, so a file that exists but that consumers drop is reported as broken rather than as present.

Use it to answer "why is this page not being indexed?", "does this page have the metadata it needs?" or "are there broken links on the homepage?". It is the check to run before a quarterly report, and after a site rebuild.

Do not use it to check whether a site is up, which is uptime_check, or to inspect a certificate, which is ssl_check. It audits one page: it does not crawl a site, and it judges only what is in the HTML, never how a page ranks.

robots.txt is read first and obeyed. A page this crawler is not allowed to read is reported as such and is not requested — and neither are internal links it forbids. An unreadable robots.txt is treated as forbidding everything, per RFC 9309.

Link checking is one HTTP request per link, paced politely, so an audit with links takes seconds rather than milliseconds; pass checkLinks: false when speed matters more. Returns findings ordered by urgency, worst first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe page to audit, e.g. "https://example.com/pricing". A bare domain such as "example.com" is accepted and read over HTTPS. One page is audited, not a whole site, so pass the page you care about; the homepage is the usual choice.
maxLinksNoHow many internal links to check at most. Defaults to 25. Links beyond the limit are counted and reported as unchecked, never silently ignored.
checkLinksNoWhether to request each internal link to find broken ones. Defaults to true. Set it to false for a fast metadata-only audit: link checking is one request per link and is what makes this tool take seconds rather than milliseconds.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL that was requested.
pageYesWhat the document itself says.
linksYesInternal link health. Only internal links are requested; external ones are counted.
robotsYesWhat the host publishes about crawling, and what it means for this audit.
statusYesHTTP status of the page.
fetchedYesWhether the page was read at all. False when robots.txt forbids it.
sitemapYesThe sitemap declared in robots.txt, or /sitemap.xml when none is declared.
finalUrlYesWhere it ended up after redirects.
findingsYesWhat needs attention, worst first.
severityYesHow much attention this needs. "critical" means act now; "warning" means act this month; "unknown" means the check could not establish the fact, which is not the same as it being fine.
checkedAtYesWhen the audit ran, ISO 8601 in UTC.
truncatedYesWhether the document was longer than the read limit and was cut off.
contentTypeYesContent type, without parameters, e.g. "text/html".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context: robots.txt is read first and obeyed, an unreadable robots.txt is treated as forbidding everything per RFC 9309, forbidden links are not requested, sitemap validity is judged by protocol rules rather than mere existence, and results are ordered worst-first. It even explains the seconds-vs-milliseconds latency cost of link checking.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the resource and reported facts, then usage, then exclusions, then behavioral caveats. Dense and almost every sentence carries information, though the length sits at the upper end for a single-page audit tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure needn't be described, and the description still covers everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly: scope, exclusions, robots/RFC behavior, latency tradeoff, and result ordering.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds decision value beyond the schema: it explains why checkLinks costs time (one HTTP request per link, paced politely) and when to set it false, and it reinforces maxLinks' semantics (unchecked links are counted, never silently ignored).

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?

States a specific verb (reads) and resource (one page) and enumerates exactly what is reported: title/meta, headings, canonical, OG, hreflang, viewport, alt-less images, robots.txt, sitemap, broken internal links. It is unmistakable against siblings like site_crawl (one page, not a whole site) and uptime_check.

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?

Gives concrete questions it answers, a lifecycle cue (before a quarterly report, after a rebuild), and explicit exclusions naming the alternatives uptime_check and ssl_check. It also states the negative scope: it does not crawl a site and does not judge rankings.

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