Headline Generator
headline-generatorRead-only
Headline Generator: Generate catchy, click-worthy headlines. (free, AI-generated, rate-limited).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes |
Spook SEO
by com.tryspook
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly noting 'free, AI-generated, rate-limited', disclosing rate limits and non-deterministic AI output. It lacks other behavioral details like return format, but the added caveats are valuable.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence plus a parenthetical. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant information or fluff.
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 the 1-parameter tool and no output schema, the description should clarify expected output format or usage scenarios. It mentions rate limiting and AI generation but omits return type, potential multiple outputs, and configuration details, leaving notable gaps for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the 'topic' parameter. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, no guidance is given on input format, examples, or constraints, leaving the agent uncertain about valid values.
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 clearly states the tool generates catchy, click-worthy headlines (specific verb + resource). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like headline-analyzer or seo-title-generator, which also deal with headlines.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as headline-analyzer for analysis or youtube-title-generator for niche-specific titles. It only implies usage by stating its core function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but word-counter and character-counter overlap heavily, and meta-tag-generator subsumes several other generators (title, description, canonical). The sheer number of adjacent content generators creates some ambiguity, though descriptions generally clarify.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names are inconsistent: some use snake_case (create_site, get_article, list_articles) while others use hyphenated lowercase (ad-copy-generator, meta-tag-generator, robots-txt-generator). This mixing of conventions makes it hard for an agent to predict the name for a given action.
Tool Count2/5
With 59 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for a typical MCP server. Many tools are similar (various calculators, many content generators) and could be consolidated, making the surface bloated and harder to navigate.
Completeness3/5
The server covers a broad range of SEO tasks: site management, article generation/publishing, analytics, technical SEO, and content tools. However, there are gaps such as missing update/delete operations for articles and no backlink analysis, leaving some workflows incomplete.