SEOmatic

task_manage

Read the agent's plan board and stage new SEO task proposals. Proposals NEVER execute: each is an approval-gated card the user reviews. Available on paid SEOmatic plans: this key is on the free insight tier, so calling any action returns the exact upgrade path to relay to the user instead of refusing. Every staged change still requires human approval in SEOmatic before anything goes live.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tasks`	No	create only: up to 5 task objects to stage as proposals (see the SEOmatic docs for the task shape).
`action`	Yes	Which operation to run. create (stage up to 5 task proposals); decide (approve or dismiss a staged proposal (the approval loop)).
`taskId`	No	get/decide: the task to read or decide.
`decision`	No	decide only: approve releases the task to the gated pipeline; dismiss archives it. Indexation-destructive types are refused over the API.
`user_intent`	No	Optional: one short sentence describing what the user is ultimately trying to achieve with this request. Used by SEOmatic to tailor answers and improve the product; never required.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / user_intent

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: one short sentence describing what the user is ultimately trying to achieve with this request. Used by SEOmatic to tailor answers and improve the product; never required.",
+  "maxLength": 300,
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedSep 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that proposals NEVER execute, every change requires human approval, and this key returns an upgrade path instead of refusing. These are critical behavioral traits that annotations alone don't convey.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, non-execution guarantee, approval gating, and the free-tier upgrade-path behavior are all front-loaded with no filler.

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?

The description covers the core workflow and the free-tier behavior well, and an output schema exists so return values need not be repeated. However, the opening promise to 'Read the agent's plan board' is not cleanly supported by the action enum (only create and decide), and the description doesn't resolve that mismatch or give explicit routing guidance compared to siblings.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds useful framing about approval gating and upgrade behavior, but doesn't add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides for action, tasks, taskId, decision, and user_intent.

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?

The description states a specific purpose: read the agent's plan board and stage new SEO task proposals. It clarifies these are approval-gated and never execute, which distinguishes this from execution-oriented SEO tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the task-proposal framing makes the tool's role reasonably clear.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives useful context: the tool is paid-plan only, this key is on the free tier, and any action returns an upgrade path to relay. It also explains the approval-gated workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some usage inference to the agent.

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

All SEOmatic tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct SEO domain: backlinks, campaigns, datasets, AI visibility, keyword research, local presence, SERP, site audit, page analysis, and tasks. The two 'manage' tools are clearly separated by campaign vs task, and descriptions actively cross-reference each other to disambiguate. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix conventions: bare noun phrases (backlink_profile, site_pages), object-verb forms (campaign_manage, task_manage), and verb-first forms (get_ai_visibility, import_attachment_as_dataset). The 'site_' prefix is used for only two tools, and 'manage' is reused inconsistently. While readable, the naming lacks a predictable pattern.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well-scoped for a broad SEO platform, covering technical, keyword, SERP, backlink, local, AI visibility, dataset, and workflow management. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels neither bloated nor thin.

Completeness4/5

The set covers major SEO analysis workflows and adds campaign/task management plus dataset support. However, site_pages references a 'gsc_performance' tool that is not included, and dataset management is read-only plus import-only, lacking update/delete. These are minor gaps that agents can work around.

Resources

Need Help?