Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MWIE MCP Server

MWIE MCP Server

by tmolavi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

analyze_seo

Run a technical SEO audit for a URL to check titles, descriptions, headings, images, canonical tags, schemas, and score; optionally render JavaScript.

Instructions

Run a technical SEO audit: title, description, headings, images, canonical, schemas, and score.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_seo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
render_jsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the audit checks and a score, but does not state that it is read-only, what render_js changes, or how failures or rate limits are handled; core behavior is present but incomplete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording; the checklist is compact and immediately useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a simple two-parameter tool and an output schema, the description covers the audit purpose and checks. However, it leaves the render_js toggle and URL handling completely undocumented, so an agent lacks enough context for non-default invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the required url or the render_js boolean. It therefore adds no parameter meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action ('Run a technical SEO audit') and enumerates the audited elements plus a score, making the resource clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as extract_page_content or crawl_url, so it falls short of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among sibling tools. The audit intent is only implied by the name and opening phrase, leaving the agent to infer when this should be selected over page extraction or crawling.

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