A
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceRuns AI visibility (GEO/AEO) audits on websites, checking AI crawler access, schema markup, llms.txt, and content signals, with optional full PDF report.
MIT
audit
by ai.webmatik
Server Details
AI website growth audits: SEO, performance, AI readiness (GEO), conversion, a11y, security.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
2 toolsget_auditAInspect
Fetch a Webmatik audit by id. While background analysis (AI vision, AI search visibility) is still running the response says so — poll every ~15s until status is "completed". Returns scores per category, failed checks, and the prioritized recommendations.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Webmatik API key (wmk_...). Optional if sent as Authorization: Bearer header. | |
| auditId | Yes | Audit id returned by run_audit |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses asynchronous behavior (status polling) and return contents (scores, failed checks, recommendations). With no annotations, this adequately covers key behavioral traits. Does not mention authentication error handling or rate limits.
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?
Two concise sentences covering action, asynchronous detail, and return values. No redundancy or fluff.
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?
Completeness is high given no output schema: explains what data is returned and the polling mechanism. Could mention error responses or idempotency but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no further detail about parameter usage or formats, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states 'Fetch a Webmatik audit by id', uses specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling 'run_audit' which creates audits.
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?
Provides explicit polling advice ('poll every ~15s until status is completed'), indicating when to use repeatedly. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear given single sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
run_auditAInspect
Start a full Webmatik growth audit of a website: SEO, performance (Core Web Vitals), AI readiness (GEO), conversion, retention, UI/UX, accessibility, and security — 70+ checks with a 0–100 Growth Score and a prioritized action plan. The audit takes 60–180 seconds; this returns an auditId immediately — poll get_audit for the result. Requires a Webmatik API key (get one at https://webmatik.ai/account, Starter/Growth plans).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Website URL to audit, e.g. https://example.com | |
| apiKey | No | Webmatik API key (wmk_...). Optional if sent as Authorization: Bearer header. |
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description adequately discloses the audit's scope (70+ checks, 0–100 score), timing (60–180s), and that it returns auditId immediately. It also notes the API key requirement, but doesn't detail error handling or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences that front-load the main purpose, then provide timing and next steps. It is well-structured with no 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 no output schema, the description clarifies the immediate return value (auditId) and directs to poll get_audit. It covers the key aspects of the async operation, though it could detail the returned object structure more.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 it starts a full Webmatik growth audit covering SEO, performance, AI readiness, etc., and distinguishes from sibling tool get_audit by specifying it returns auditId immediately for polling.
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?
The description indicates when to use this tool (to start an audit) and directs to use get_audit for results. It also mentions the prerequisite API key and where to obtain it, but doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
2 tool updates
- First observed
get_audit - First observed
run_audit
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
Related MCP Connectors
AI website audit: security, SEO, performance, UX and accessibility checks with actionable fixes.
Authorized security, SEO, AI visibility, integrations, accessibility and performance audits.
- CrawlieOAuthapp.crawlie
Technical SEO + GEO (AI-search) site audits: hosted crawls, prioritized fixes, report diffs.
Full AI visibility audits: schema, citations, agentic readiness, agent journeys, WordPress deploys.
Related MCP Servers
Seonix SEO MCPofficial
AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceLets any AI agent audit any website for SEO, GEO/AEO, and speed problems, reporting issues and recommendations without modifying the site.4MIT- FlicenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceProvides comprehensive website auditing for SEO, performance, accessibility, and security using AI-powered analysis. It enables users to generate detailed audit reports and actionable improvement suggestions for any given URL.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAudits any website for SEO issues, providing scored health checks, schema validation, and performance analysis through AI assistants.-
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: run_audit starts a new audit, and get_audit retrieves results. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (run_audit, get_audit), making the naming predictable and clear.
Tool Count4/5
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its purpose: starting and retrieving audits. While slightly below the typical 3-15 range, it covers the essential operations without unnecessary extras.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides a complete workflow: run_audit initiates the audit and returns an ID, and get_audit allows polling for results. There are no obvious gaps, as the audit lifecycle is fully supported.