aeo
Server Details
Scan any website for AI readiness — 100-point score across 6 AEO categories in seconds.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: aeo_scan initiates new scans while aeo_lookup retrieves existing results by ID. No functional overlap exists between creation and retrieval operations.
Both tools follow an identical naming convention with the 'aeo_' prefix followed by a descriptive verb (lookup/scan) in snake_case. The pattern is predictable and consistent throughout the minimal set.
With only 2 tools, this falls into the 'borderline thin' category per the rubric. While it covers basic scan-and-retrieve functionality, the lack of list, delete, or management operations makes the surface feel minimal for a persistence-backed scanning service.
The server implements create (scan) and read (lookup) but lacks list_scans to discover IDs, delete_scan for cleanup, or any update functionality. Without list capabilities, agents cannot discover previously created scan IDs, creating a notable usability gap.
Available Tools
2 toolsaeo_lookupAInspect
Look up a previous AEO scan result by its 8-character ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id | Yes | 8-character scan ID (e.g. TtIsr_ZA) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('look up'). It adds the specific ID format constraint (8-character). Missing disclosure on error handling (e.g., invalid/not-found ID behavior) or return value structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 11 words. Front-loaded with action verb. Every element earns its place: action ('Look up'), resource ('previous AEO scan result'), and key identifier ('8-character ID'). Zero redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriately complete for a simple 1-parameter lookup tool with no output schema. Covers the essential contract (retrieve previous result by ID). Minor gap: could briefly indicate what happens when the ID is not found, but the core functionality is adequately described given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (high), establishing baseline 3. The description mentions '8-character ID' which reinforces the schema's description of the scan_id parameter, but adds no additional semantic context about validation rules or ID generation beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Look up') and resource ('previous AEO scan result'). The word 'previous' implicitly distinguishes this from the sibling 'aeo_scan' (creation vs retrieval), though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or state the contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage context by specifying 'previous' scan result and requiring an '8-character ID', indicating this is for retrieving existing data rather than creating new scans. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or stated relationship to 'aeo_scan'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
aeo_scanAInspect
Scan a website for AI readiness. Accepts a domain or any URL — we automatically scan the homepage. Returns a 0-100 score with top issues. Powered by Obaron (obaron.ai).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain or URL to scan (e.g. example.com, https://example.com/about) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden and adequately discloses: automatic homepage scanning regardless of specific URL provided, output format (0-100 score with top issues), and external dependency (Obaron service). Missing only safety/rate limit details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tight sentences covering purpose, input handling, output format, and attribution. Zero waste, logically ordered, front-loaded with action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool without output schema, description adequately compensates by describing return values (score range and issues) and operational behavior. Sufficient for agent selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage, but description adds critical semantic context: 'we automatically scan the homepage' clarifies that the tool ignores path components and always targets the root domain, which is not obvious from schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb 'Scan', resource 'website', and distinct purpose 'AI readiness' that clearly differentiates from sibling 'aeo_lookup' (scanning vs lookup operations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides input format guidance ('Accepts a domain or any URL') but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance relative to sibling 'aeo_lookup' or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail — every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control — enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management — store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts — get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption — public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics — see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback — users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!