Waild MCP

The SEO MCP server
for content that actually ranks.

Waild MCP plugs into Claude and hands it what no AI has out of the box: live SEO data, competitor intelligence, and a quality gate that refuses to ship slop. Keyword research, briefs, drafts, grading, maintenance — one conversation.

Notify me at launch Watch it work ↓
100+tools live today
1 call= a writer-ready brief
13/100what slop scores here
AnyGoogle market & language

Watch a real session

Not a mockup — these are replays of recorded conversations with the live server. Click any tool chip to see the actual response Claude received.

We ran it on ourselves: is there a market for an SEO MCP?
We're launching waild.fi — an SEO MCP server for Claude. Is there real search demand, and can a brand-new site actually win any of it?
Read the full transcripts as text

We ran it on ourselves: is there a market for an SEO MCP?

User: We're launching waild.fi — an SEO MCP server for Claude. Is there real search demand, and can a brand-new site actually win any of it?

Tool call: keyword_overview

Claude: The market has layers. “ai seo” pulls 8,100 searches a month but sits at difficulty 52. The obvious prize is “ai seo tools”: 2,400/month, commercial intent, a $41 CPC — advertisers pay heavily for this click — at difficulty just 10. And our own product terms (“seo mcp”, “claude seo”) are small but exactly what early adopters type. Before writing anything: can waild.fi actually win the prize keyword today?

Tool call: keyword_winnability_score

Claude: The gate said no — to our own favorite keyword. The pages ranking for “ai seo tools” have a median of 61 referring domains; waild.fi has 15. Writing that article today would be 3,000 words into a wall. So where does the same gate say yes?

Tool call: keyword_winnability_score

Claude: “seo mcp server”: winnable at 0.96. The link bar is a median of 5 referring domains, two pages are ranking with almost none, and a Reddit thread sits in the top 5 — beatable with one thorough page. That's the beachhead: win the niche cluster first, bank authority, then come back for the 2,400-a-month term. Every number here is a real reading against our own domain.

A brief from the live SERP — and a gate that says no

User: Build the brief for the term the gate approved — “seo mcp server” — and start the article.

Tool call: build_content_brief

Claude: The brief is built from the 7 pages that actually rank: a 1,380-word median band, the sections every winner covers, 50 terms with counts, an open featured-snippet play, and an E-E-A-T reminder that first-hand data wins — which we have, being the product. I draft against it, and then the honest part happens. The first draft doesn't get a free pass:

Tool call: grade_draft

Claude: 13 out of 100 — on an article about our own product. It counted “unlock” three times, caught “cutting-edge” and “in conclusion”, measured 155.7 AI-tells per 1,000 words, and held 122 words against a 1,380-word bar. The loop rewrites and re-grades until the draft clears 75. Nothing ships at 13 — that gate is the difference between content and slop.

Three editors read the draft — you keep the pen

User: The grade gate flagged the prose on the “seo mcp server” draft. Get me a real second opinion so I can fix it myself — don't just rewrite it for me.

Claude: critique_draft is the canonical prose pass. Instead of a machine rewriting your draft — and sanding off your voice into fresh slop — a panel of three independent models each reads the whole draft against the same human-prose craft standard and hands back prioritized notes: quoted line, concrete fix, why. It runs server-side as an async job, so it never floods the chat:

Tool call: critique_draft

Claude: A couple of minutes later the panel has settled. I poll the result — three raw, unmerged reads, labelled model_1/2/3 so I weigh them without knowing which model wrote which:

Tool call: job_result

Claude: All three converge on the same failures — kill the “in today's fast-paced digital landscape” filler, replace “serves as a bridge” with the actual mechanism (the assistant calls the server, the server queries a live SEO API and returns structured data), and close the 24/100 coverage gap by explaining what MCP stands for rather than padding. Three independent reads agreeing is a strong signal, and because I do the rewrite myself — facts and full context in hand — the fix keeps my voice instead of averaging into committee slop.

Know exactly who you're up against

User: The SEO-tool industry owns “ai seo tools”. Who actually ranks — should waild.fi even try?

Tool call: serp_organic_live_advanced

Claude: Surprise: the giants aren't at #1. Semrush and Surfer live inside the AI overview and other people's listicles — every top organic result is a tested-roundup page, and the real #1 is rankability.com. So how strong is the page you'd actually have to beat?

Tool call: domain_rank_overview

Tool call: backlinks_summary

Claude: 844 US keywords worth ~101,500 monthly visits, 59 of them at #1, backed by 2,661 referring domains — against waild.fi's 15. That's not a fight, it's a donation. So you route around it: the winnability gate already showed “ai seo tools” needs a median of 61 referring domains while “seo mcp server” needs 5. Win the niche, bank the links (see the Links tab for exactly where), then challenge the roundups. This isn't advice we sell — it's the playbook we're running, recorded live.

Where should a brand-new site get its links?

User: How can I build links for my site waild.fi?

Tool call: backlinks_summary

Claude: Honest starting point: 15 referring domains and 12 of them are nofollow — this is a brand-new site with almost no link equity. So don't chase your own profile; look at where sites with the same kind of product get their links. First, who ranks for this niche:

Tool call: serp_organic_live_advanced

Claude: The #1 result is an SEO MCP repo — a directly comparable product. Whoever links to it links to things like waild.fi. Pulling its referring domains:

Tool call: backlinks_referring_domains

Claude: There's the map — and after bulk rank + spam scoring, the easiest-first list: six clean MCP directories you can submit to today (mcplist.ai spam 8, mcphub.com 15, toolsdk.ai 25, aibit.im 10, clelp.ai 8, n8nworkflows.xyz 5), then four SEO-tool blogs running roundups worth a pitch (usersupports.com, nightwatch.io, techrt.com, launchcodex.com — all spam ≤ 23). The gate also said no four times: mcpcursor.com scored spam 78, quillly.com 49, awesomelib.com 44 — listings there would hurt, not help. This pipeline is what link_prospect_scan runs for you — one call that hands back a job handle you poll while the fan-out runs server-side — and link_campaign_tracker keeps the list between sessions with a verify action that flips each row to “linked” when the backlink actually appears. Nothing is auto-sent; the outreach stays yours.

A marketing plan that refuses to be built on hope

User: Now for real: build waild.fi's own marketing plan. I've got 10 honest hours a week.

Tool call: marketing_plan

Claude: Refused — by design, even for the owner. No evidence, no plan. But the Research tab already produced the evidence: “ai seo tools” is real demand we can't win yet (link bar 61 vs our 15), and the niche cluster is winnable at 0.96. That goes in verbatim:

Tool call: marketing_plan

Claude: Plan created — and the cadence is derived, not declared: 10 hours becomes 8 plannable, which sustains 4 long-form pieces a month, and it warns that a launch is a 50–120-hour project of its own. The first decisions go in dated, with metrics and the evidence that justified them:

Tool call: marketing_plan

Claude: Three real commitments: the directory submissions come straight from the Links tab's scored prospect list, the Reddit post is our actual beta announcement — and the third item is recording the demos you're reading right now. Decisions live in the store, so next session “what's due this week?” is answered from the plan, never re-improvised. Next tab: scheduling the whole content cluster.

Twelve months of publish-by dates — honest about capacity

User: Schedule the whole niche cluster into the plan: 12 months out, refresh work included.

Tool call: campaign_calendar

Claude: Sixteen dated items in one call: ten publish-by articles ordered by priority, four quarterly decay scans, and annual review dates for our two key pages. Note the honesty in the output — this niche's demand curves are too young to trust a seasonal shape, so no seasonal publish windows were issued and everything scheduled by priority instead (the September surge on “ai seo tools” is real but has one observed cycle; a later re-run can re-time it once the pattern repeats). Three weeks came back flagged as overbooked, and every trend curve was served from cache: the preview run paid ~12 cents once, the commit was free.

Tool call: marketing_plan

Claude: And this is how every later session starts: “what's due this week?” — two articles by Tuesday, with the warning that 16 booked hours won't fit in 8 plannable ones, so something moves. This calendar isn't a mockup: it's waild.fi's live editorial plan, and the pages it schedules will land on this site on those dates.

Where the SERP already favors social — so we distribute where we can win

User: We shipped the “seo mcp server” guide. Before writing social posts, which platforms already own these searches — so we distribute where we can actually get seen?

Tool call: social_serp_presence

Claude: The SERP picked the platform for us. Reddit ranks organically for four of the five head terms — position 1 for “seo mcp” and “ai seo,” position 2 for our exact term “seo mcp server” (the thread there is literally someone's 37-tool SEO MCP). Every term is video-shaped too: a YouTube/Shorts unit rides all five. That is exactly why our live plan's first social move is a genuine, non-promotional Reddit value post for r/SEO or r/ClaudeAI, not a LinkedIn broadcast. What happens from here is described rather than replayed, because this recording predates it: find_social_threads ranks the actual threads behind those results and says plainly which ones it could read and which hid behind a login wall; social_post_advice reduces the article to the claims worth carrying and returns the angle, the traps, and the platform constraints — without writing a word of the post; we write it ourselves; and grade_social_post gates it, where a number that doesn't trace back to the article never ships. We would rather describe that loop than fake a transcript of it; the real run gets recorded here once we run it.

grade_draft says each page is good — but are they all the same?

User: grade_draft tells us each page is good on its own. But we've published a handful now — are they quietly starting to sound the same, the same words and phrasings across all of them, without us noticing? We haven't made a list. Just read the whole site and tell us what we overuse.

Tool call: content_distinctiveness_check

Claude: It keeps only a compact digest of each page — a token multiset, a recurring-phrase set, a structural fingerprint — never the full text. Then it reads the corpus against itself.

Tool call: content_distinctiveness_check

Claude: No word list — and it named what we over-lean on anyway. Top of the list: “slop,” on every one of the five pages, twelve times. The anti-slop brand had quietly become its own slop, and no per-page grade could ever see it. Under it: “ai,” “ship,” “gate,” “refuses” — content words we repeat page after page — plus three phrasings we reuse almost verbatim (“pages that actually rank,” “0 to 100 against the”). Our real topic terms — seo, serp, content — are suppressed, so it never nags us for using our own keywords. That is the whole split: grade_draft makes each page good; this makes sure the pages are not all the same.

Tool call: content_distinctiveness_check

Claude: Now that we've seen it, we mark “slop” as a word we own on purpose — so from here every draft is checked against how hard the corpus already leans on it, and it rides into ship_check as an awareness line: a nudge to vary, never a gate that turns red.

It asks YOU before it writes — and won't ship without your answer.

User: I want a page for waild.fi on “ai content optimization.” Before you write a word — how do I know it won't just read like every other AI-written page? How do you make it say something only I could say?

Tool call: build_content_brief

Claude: The brief doesn't just hand me headings and a word count. It hands me questions to ask YOU — derived from a real information-gain gap. Note the flag on the output: these are candidates to put to the human, never for me to answer myself.

Tool call: author_input_loop

Claude: This is the mechanism. Seven net-new questions to put to you — and two it refuses to ask again, because it can prove the bank already answers them (that is `answered`). Eight banked entries get reused, never re-asked. I will not invent your opinions. So, two of the seven: the “30% rule” — 0 of the 7 ranking pages even mention it — do you buy it, and what do you tell people instead? And: you built an optimization tool; what surprised you when you actually ran the optimize-then-ship loop?

Tool call: experience_bank

Claude: Your actual answer, in your words, saved under the topic — so it is reused next time and never re-asked. Now the draft is written against the brief and your input. Watch what the ship gate does with it — first, deliberately, with NO personal input passed.

Tool call: ship_check

Claude: Red. Coverage is optimal, the prose is clean, every differentiator is covered — and it still refuses to ship, because the draft carries none of the author's first-hand input. That is the gate the tool result names above. No amount of polish buys past it. Now the same draft, with your eight real first-hand items passed in.

Tool call: ship_check

Claude: Green. The only thing that changed between the two runs is your input — the gate reads “8 of 8 present and used” and clears. That is the whole feature: it asks you first, banks your answer so it never asks twice, and refuses to publish a page that carries none of you. And it won't let me fake your experience to get past the gate.

What it can do today

The content-SEO engine is built and running. This is the live surface, not a roadmap.

Briefs from the live SERP

One call reads the pages that actually rank and returns a writer-ready brief: outline, word band, term targets, questions, snippet play.

A gate that refuses slop

Every draft is graded 0–100 against the real competition — AI-tells, thin coverage, and template prose get bounced before they ship.

Keyword clustering & topical maps

SERP-overlap clustering decides one-page-vs-many and lays out pillar/spoke plans with the internal links to match.

Winnability before effort

A backlink-gap gate scores every target keyword first, so you never write 3,000 words for a fight you can't win.

Competitor & backlink intel

Domain overviews, keyword intersections, 11M-row backlink profiles, anchors, and gap analysis — the full picture in compact answers.

Maintenance that pays rent

Quick wins, content decay scans, and cannibalization checks run over cached data — the fastest rankings you'll ever get.

Ground truth, not guesswork

Connect your own Search Console (a one-time service-account grant, or just paste an export — no OAuth dance) and the maintain loop runs on real clicks and impressions instead of estimates: decay scans cite actual traffic, quick wins rank by measured demand, and you see the queries you already earn that you never wrote for. Ship a change and ask for the receipt — a weekday-normalized before/after verdict around your own edit, publish, or won link. An opt-in canary watches your top pages' index state nightly. Umami web analytics plugs in beside it.

A panel critique, not a rewrite

Three independent models each critique your finished draft against one human-prose standard and hand back prioritized notes — quoted line, concrete fix, why — so you do the final rewrite yourself, voice intact. A second read from three editors beats a machine rewrite.

One voice, never cookie-cutter

A cross-page check over your whole published corpus catches what per-page grading can't: the signature words, scaffolding phrases, and repeated skeletons that creep in when every article is optimized to the same shape — so your house style keeps one voice without hardening into its own slop.

Your first-hand input, forced in

The one thing an AI can't fake is what you actually know. So the brief turns the gap analysis into a handful of pointed questions for you — which common advice you disagree with, what happened when you really did it, what numbers you have that competitors don't — and never re-asks what you've already answered. The ship gate then checks your real input is present and actually used: a draft carrying none of it is presumed slop.

Link building that persists

One scan returns scored white-hat link prospects — lost links, competitor gaps, broken pages, unlinked brand mentions — and a campaign tracker remembers every prospect, pitch, and won link between sessions.

A marketing plan that remembers

Per-product plans that refuse to exist without demand evidence: channel decisions with rationale and success metrics, cadence derived from your real hours, and “what do I do this week” answered from the stored plan — never re-improvised.

Social you write, gated before it ships

We don't write your posts. Your Claude does — with our research, your voice, and a gate that says no. You get the article's real claims worth carrying plus the per-platform angle, traps, and constraints; the live Reddit and forum threads worth joining, honest about which ones we could actually read; and a grader where an invented number never ships. Plus which platforms already own the SERP, so you distribute where you can win.

Any Google market, data everywhere

Location and language are first-class on every call, so the keyword, SERP, and backlink data covers any Google market. Briefs, grading, and clustering run in your target market too — the language-intelligence layer (discovery matching, repetition checks) is best-verified for English and major European languages, with other scripts less certain.

Why this SEO MCP server is different

Three categories of AI SEO tools try to solve this. Here's the honest comparison.

Raw API wrappers

Hand your assistant 100 endpoints and a manual — every answer is a wall of JSON it must stitch together itself.

Waild MCP

Server-side workflows return the decision, not the dump: one call, one brief, one verdict. A shared cache makes reruns free.

SEO content editors

A separate app with a score meter — you copy-paste between your writing tool and theirs, per-seat, per-month.

Waild MCP

Lives inside the assistant you already write with. The same data, the same scoring mechanics — as tools Claude wields mid-draft.

Generic AI writing

Fluent, confident, ungrounded — the slop that ranks nowhere and reads like everyone else's slop.

Waild MCP

Grounded in the live SERP, gated by a grader that measures against pages that actually rank, and honest about winnability.

Be first through the door

The engine works today; the doors open soon. Leave an email and get exactly one message when it's live — no drip campaign, no “content”.

Questions

What is this, exactly?

An SEO MCP (Model Context Protocol) server. You connect it to Claude — or any MCP-compatible assistant — and it gains real-time search, keyword, competitor, on-page, and backlink data, plus built-in briefing, grading, and anti-slop gating. You chat like you always do; the tools fire underneath.

What is an MCP server?

A program that gives an AI assistant access to external tools and data through the Model Context Protocol, an open standard introduced by Anthropic in 2024. We wrote a full plain-English explainer of how MCP servers work, with examples and what we learned building this one: what is an MCP server?

Does it only work with Claude?

It's built and tested with Claude first, but MCP is an open standard — OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's Gemini adopted it in 2025 — so any MCP-compatible assistant can connect the same server.

Is the demo real?

Yes. The conversations above are replays of actual recorded sessions against the live server — the search volumes, difficulty scores, and backlink counts are all genuine, and so is the first draft that scored 13/100 and got sent back. They're also all about waild.fi itself: the Plan and Calendar tabs show our real, live marketing plan — we run waild.fi on waild.fi.

What can it do today?

The content-SEO engine is live: SERP-grounded briefs, term-coverage grading, keyword clustering, topical maps, content-gap roadmaps, winnability scoring, quick wins, decay scans, cannibalization checks, backlink analysis, YouTube data, and a 3-model panel critique that hands you prioritized rewrite notes — in any Google market and language. The first marketing verticals are live too: review mining (voice-of-customer, reply drafting), white-hat link building (prospect scans, unlinked-mention finding, persistent campaign tracking), per-product marketing planning (demand-gated plans, channel decisions with stored rationale, weekly execution queries, seasonality-timed publishing calendars that schedule content ahead of demand peaks, and a dated launch playbook that expands a launch date into a phased multi-week task list sized against your real capacity), advise-first social distribution (the server never writes your posts: it returns the claims from your article that are worth carrying plus the per-platform angle, traps, and constraints, finds the live Reddit, Quora, and local-language forum threads that rank for your keyword — telling you plainly which ones it could actually read and which hid behind a wall — and grades the pack you write, where a number that doesn't trace back to your article blocks the ship, with social-SERP-presence analysis to pick the winnable platform per topic — deploying owner-first), an author-input loop that turns the gap analysis into a handful of pointed questions for you — what you disagree with, what you actually measured, what you have that competitors lack — never re-asks what you have already answered, and makes the ship gate refuse a draft that carries none of your own first-hand input (deploying owner-first), a cross-page distinctiveness check that scans your whole published corpus for the signature words, emerging phrases, and repeated templates that turn a house style into its own slop — surfaced as a nudge to vary, never a hard block (deploying owner-first) — and the first GEO / AI-search layer: an advisory citability sub-score on every draft (is it structured to be quoted by AI answers?) is live today, with the answer-surface tools — reading who Google's AI Overview and AI Mode cite for your topics, and job-based brand-visibility tracking across AI engines — deploying owner-first behind the AI-search pack. Newest: the first-party measurement layer (deploying owner-first behind the analytics pack) — connect your own Google Search Console with a one-time service-account grant (or just paste a performance export, no credential at all) and the maintain loop runs on ground truth: decay scans fire on real clicks and impressions, quick wins carry measured demand next to the estimates, cannibalization checks show the actual click split between your competing pages, plus traffic-drop diagnosis (was it demand, rankings, or the snippet?), post-publish checks on the exact pages you shipped, the queries you already earn impressions for but never targeted, and Umami web analytics alongside. And on top of that store, a receipts layer no other Search Console integration offers: "did my change work" verdicts pinned to your own edits, publishes, and won links (weekday-normalized before/after, flagged when a Google update overlaps), brief term targets measured against the queries the page actually earned, the anonymized share of your demand trended, sitemap pages Google has never shown surfaced, and an opt-in nightly index canary that catches deindexing, canonical flips, and fresh soft-404s on your top pages.

What's coming?

Bring your own platform keys. Any credential you can obtain yourself — a Reddit API app first, other social platforms after — will ride through the server free: we charge for the research, the judgment, and the gates, never for data your own key already unlocks (it also means the platform's rate limits and terms are yours, not ours, so your access is never resold to you). The plumbing runs on our own instance today and reaches customer accounts as a deliberate next step. After that, the rest of the marketing expansion: ads intelligence, local, e-commerce, reputation monitoring, and cross-channel budget and mix recommendations. Join the waitlist and you'll hear when it opens.