Search Scope AI Visibility Auditor

Audit AI search visibility (GEO readiness)

audit_ai_visibility

Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit a public website for AI search / GEO readiness by fetching and analysing a small prioritised sample of its pages (homepage, about, services or products, pricing, locations, key guides). Returns ten sections plus a page-by-page rewrite section: A executive summary, B entity clarity, C AI retrievability (are answers in clear self-contained passages), D information gain (first-party data, research, case studies actually present on the site), E trust and corroboration signals, F internal linking and architecture, G structured data found and relevant omissions, H commercial query coverage and gaps, I top 10 recommended actions ranked by commercial impact then visibility impact then ease, J 20 AI search prompts to monitor. Findings that can be acted on come with the offending text quoted verbatim and a prefilled replacement: rewritten opening paragraphs, opening sentences for question headings that do not answer, specific internal links to add with suggested anchor text, and a ready-to-paste JSON-LD block. Anything the crawl did not observe is left as a clearly marked [placeholder] rather than invented. Use it when a user asks how ready a site is for ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini or Google AI Overviews, wants a GEO or AI SEO audit, or wants prioritised on-site fixes. It does NOT measure real citations or rankings inside any AI assistant, does not use paid data sources, does not execute JavaScript, and never invents evidence: everything reported is observed on the fetched pages or explicitly labelled as an inferred gap. Ratings are qualitative (Strong / Moderate / Weak) with the rubric returned in the response. Parameters: url (required), maxPages (optional, default 8, max 15). Only public http/https hosts are accepted. A full audit typically takes 5 to 25 seconds.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "audit_ai_visibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public website URL to audit, e.g. https://example.com.au. Bare domains are accepted (https is assumed). Private, loopback, internal and IP-literal hosts are rejected.
`maxPages`	No	Maximum pages to sample, including the homepage. Default 8, hard maximum 15. Pages are prioritised: homepage, about, services/products, pricing, locations, key informational pages.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`crawl`	Yes
`fixes`	Yes
`target`	Yes
`auditedAt`	Yes
`topActions`	Yes
`methodology`	Yes
`architecture`	Yes
`trustSignals`	Yes
`entityClarity`	Yes
`structuredData`	Yes
`informationGain`	Yes
`aiRetrievability`	Yes
`executiveSummary`	Yes
`monitoringPrompts`	Yes
`commercialCoverage`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavior: it fetches a prioritised sample, does not execute JavaScript, uses no paid data, never invents evidence and emits [placeholder] instead, and gives a latency estimate of 5 to 25 seconds. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before committing to the call.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: what it does, then the section list, then when to use it, then the exclusions. The ten-section enumeration is long but each item is a distinct deliverable. It could be tightened, but nothing is obviously wasted.

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?

A mutation-free, two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations. The description fills in everything else an agent could need – scope, exclusions, latency, evidence policy, rating style – so nothing material is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents url and maxPages, including the default of 8 and the max of 15. The description reinforces the public http/https restriction and the prioritised page order, which adds a little context despite being largely duplicative.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (audit a public website for AI search / GEO readiness) plus the exact scope of what is fetched and what ten report sections are produced. This is far more specific than the sibling names (generate_geo_query_universe, extract_site_entities), so an agent can tell which one to call without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit positive triggers ('user asks how ready a site is for ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini or Google AI Overviews', 'wants a GEO or AI SEO audit') and explicit exclusions ('does NOT measure real citations or rankings inside any AI assistant'). The not-does list removes the most likely misfire.

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

All Search Scope AI Visibility Auditor tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.