Skip to main content
Glama

webbersites-x402-data-api

by io.github.webberdesign

get_seo_site_audit

Read-onlyIdempotent

SITE-WIDE audit — the full 7-part on-page audit (head/meta, alt text, social cards, links, WCAG, schema.org, robots) run across up to 8 pages of one site in a single call. Discovers pages from the start URL's internal links, audits each, and returns per-page scores plus a site-level score, grade, and the issues that repeat across pages. The finished deliverable: one call, whole-site verdict. ?url=&pages=&level=&detail= ($0.05 per call, paid via x402)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesStart URL (usually the homepage)
levelNoWCAG level: A, AA (default), AAA
pagesNoMax pages to audit, 2-8 (default 5)
detailNosummary (default) or full — full includes every per-page section report

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteNo
gradeNo
pagesNo
site_scoreNo
common_issuesNo
pages_auditedNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. The description adds behavioral details like crawling internal links, cost ($0.05 per call), and deliverable (per-page scores, site grade), enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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?

Concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose and scope, then details output and pricing. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

Output schema exists (confirmed). The description fully explains the tool's behavior, inputs, output, and cost, making it complete for an agent to decide usage.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds context: 'usually the homepage' for url, defaults for level (AA), pages (5), and detail (summary), and explains that the tool audits and returns scores, adding value beyond schema.

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 the tool performs a 'SITE-WIDE audit' covering 7 on-page components across up to 8 pages, distinguishing it from sibling tools like per-page SEO checks.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It describes the scope (discovering pages from internal links, returning site-level verdict) and implies use for comprehensive audits, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance.

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

All webbersites-x402-data-api toolsInspect
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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the SEO-related tools (head_check, full_audit, site_audit, etc.) overlap in scope, potentially causing confusion despite clear descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a get_/post_/delete_ verb pattern with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., get_seo_head_check, post_store_collection), with no mixing of naming conventions.

Tool Count2/5

With 46 tools covering a wide breadth of domains (SEO, accessibility, music, crypto, linting, etc.), the count is excessive for a single server, feeling unfocused and heavy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most core operations for each sub-domain, but minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for datastore, limited music operations).

Resources