upkeep-mcp

Technical SEO across a site

site_crawl

Read-onlyIdempotent

Crawl a site from a starting URL to find duplicate titles or meta descriptions, broken internal links, noindex pages, and crawl coverage. Use it after rebuilds or migrations and before client reports.

Instructions

Walks a site from a starting page and reports what only a crawl can see: pages sharing a title or a meta description, internal links that are broken and which page links to them, pages asking not to be indexed, and how much of the site was reachable at all.

Use it after a site rebuild or a migration, and before a quarterly report — the findings here are the ones a client never notices and a search engine always does. Use it to answer "why are these pages competing with each other?", "are there broken links", anywhere on the site?" or "is anything still marked noindex from staging?".

Do not use it to audit one page in depth — that is seo_audit, which reports canonical, Open Graph, hreflang, images without alt text and the sitemap for a single URL. Do not use it to check whether a site is up (uptime_check) or to inspect a certificate (ssl_check). It judges only what is in the HTML, never how a page ranks.

It stays on one origin: https://example.com and https://www.example.com are different origins and only the one you start from is visited.

robots.txt is read first and obeyed for every URL before it is requested. An unreadable robots.txt is treated as forbidding everything, per RFC 9309, and the crawl reports that rather than proceeding.

It costs one request per page, paced at one every half second per host, so 25 pages is about fifteen seconds. Three budgets bound it — pages, depth, and a two-minute deadline — and whichever one stopped the crawl is reported along with how many URLs were left unvisited, because a report that does not say it saw a quarter of the site is worse than no report.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The page to start from, e.g. "https://example.com/" — a full URL with scheme. The crawl stays on this URL's origin, so start at the address the site actually serves: https://example.com and https://www.example.com are different origins and only one of them will be visited.
`maxDepth`	No	How many links deep from the starting page to follow. Defaults to 3. 0 fetches only the starting page. Three reaches everything a small business site has; past that the page budget is the real bound anyway. Example: 2
`maxPages`	No	How many pages to fetch. Defaults to 25, at most 100. Every page is one request paced at one every half second, so this is the cost: 25 pages is about fifteen seconds, 100 about a minute. Pages found and not visited are counted and reported. Example: 50

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`crawl`	Yes	What the crawl covered, and what it did not.
`pages`	Yes	Every page fetched, in the order they were visited.
`broken`	Yes	Internal links that did not answer with a usable status, with the page each was found on — which is the half of a broken link report that makes it fixable.
`origin`	Yes	The origin it stayed on, e.g. "https://example.com".
`findings`	Yes	What needs attention, worst first.
`severity`	Yes	How 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.
`startUrl`	Yes	The URL the crawl was asked to start from.
`checkedAt`	Yes	When the crawl ran, ISO 8601 in UTC.
`duplicates`	Yes	What only a crawl can see. One page cannot tell you that its title is the same as forty others', and that is the commonest reason a site's pages compete with each other in search results.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description goes far beyond that: origin confinement, robots.txt read first and obeyed per RFC 9309 with fail-closed behavior on unreadable files, one request per page paced at one per half second, three crawl budgets (pages, depth, two-minute deadline), and explicit reporting of which budget stopped the crawl and how many URLs were left unvisited.

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 purpose, then usage, then exclusions, then operational caveats — a sensible order with no redundancy. It runs long for a tool description and includes atmospheric lines ('the findings a client never notices and a search engine always does') that justify themselves as usage motivation but are not strictly load-bearing.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description fills every remaining gap: scope limits (one origin), legal/ethical behavior (robots.txt), cost and time expectations, and what happens when the crawl is truncated. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call it, or to interpret a partial result, is missing.

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 description coverage is already 100%, so the schema carries the definitions. The description nonetheless adds framing the schema does not: that pages, depth and a deadline are the three interacting budgets, and that the page count is the true cost driver because each page is one paced request. It does slightly restate the origin example already in the url field.

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 and resource ('walks a site from a starting page') and enumerates exactly what it reports: duplicate titles/meta descriptions, broken internal links with their referrers, noindex pages, and reachability. It actively distinguishes itself from seo_audit, uptime_check and ssl_check by naming what each of those does instead.

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 explicit triggers ('after a site rebuild or a migration, and before a quarterly report') plus concrete example questions the tool answers. It also supplies explicit exclusions with the alternative named for each: single-page depth = seo_audit, is-the-site-up = uptime_check, certificate = ssl_check.

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

Deploy Server