seo_usage
Check remaining audit credits and current plan status.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
SEO Audit MCP Server
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Check') with no side effects, which is transparent for a simple status tool. It lacks details like authentication or return format, but these are not critical for a no-parameter read operation.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists the two key outputs. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema, single purpose), the description is practically complete. It conveys exactly what the tool does. Minor gap: it does not describe the format of the returned credit/plan info, but this is not essential for a status check.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, there is nothing to explain, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist.
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?
The description clearly states 'Check remaining audit credits and current plan status' with a specific verb ('Check') and two concrete resources (audit credits and plan status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_audit_status, which focuses on audit status rather than usage.
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 implies usage for checking credits and plan status, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like seo_audit_status or seo_history. The context of 'usage' is implicit, not stated as a precondition or alternative.
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
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct SEO dimension or lifecycle stage. The check_* tools focus on specific aspects (meta, schema, performance, etc.), while audit, crawl, and status tools are separated by scope and sync/async nature. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (seo_check_*, seo_crawl_*, seo_generate_schema), but there are exceptions like seo_competitor_check (noun_verb), seo_audit_status (noun_noun), and seo_history/seo_usage (bare nouns). The consistent 'seo_' prefix helps, but inconsistent verb positioning makes the set less predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 15 tools, the set is comprehensive yet not bloated. Each tool provides a distinct capability from individual checks to async audits, crawling, competitor analysis, and account status. The count is well-suited for a full-featured SEO audit server.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the core audit lifecycle: individual checks, quick audit, deep audit with status polling, site crawl with status, historical records, and usage. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit ranking tool (though competitor check addresses part) and no tool to cancel an audit, but these are not critical for the intended purpose.