Citead GEO Score

score_text

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute the GEO score of a text with Citead: an article draft, a page copy, markdown, plain text or HTML. Returns the overall score (0 to 100), the score of each criterion (semantic richness, AI citability, freshness, content organization, authority and citations, and naturalness, which does not count in the score), the main fixes to apply, and a link to Citead's free live editor. The GEO score (0 to 100) measures how easy the content is for a language model to understand, reuse and cite: information density, quotable sentences, self-contained paragraphs, sourced and dated facts, clear structure, freshness. Naturalness is returned as a criterion but does not count in the score. It is computed by deterministic rules, without a language model: the same content always gets the same score. It does not guarantee that an AI assistant will cite the page. Free, no API key, the text is not stored. Texts under 300 words get a capped score (at most 65).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	Page title. Defaults to the first heading.
`content`	Yes	The text to score: markdown, plain text or HTML.
`language`	No	Language of the text. Omit to detect it. Only English and French have dedicated rules; other languages use the English ones.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`title`	No
`criteria`	Yes	Score of each criterion, 0 to 100, in this order: semantic richness, AI citability, freshness, content organization, authority and citations, and naturalness, which does not count in the score. The overall score is computed from sub-signals of the first five, with caps for very short content, so it is not their plain average.
`geo_score`	Yes	Overall GEO score, 0 to 100.
`top_fixes`	Yes	Main corrections, most important first.
`word_count`	Yes
`details_url`	Yes	Citead page that shows this analysis again, without publishing it to the public leaderboard. Give it to the user.
`score_meaning`	Yes
`remaining_quota`	Yes	Free scores left for this IP address in the current windows.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 14, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / criteria / description

Previous value: -"Score of each of the five criteria, 0 to 100. The overall score is computed from sub-signals of four of these criteria plus freshness, with caps for very short content, so it is not their plain average. Naturalness does not count in the overall score."New value: +"Score of each criterion, 0 to 100, in this order: semantic richness, AI citability, freshness, content organization, authority and citations, and naturalness, which does not count in the score. The overall score is computed from sub-signals of the first five, with caps for very short content, so it is not their plain average."

changedOutput schema / properties / details_url / description

Previous value: -"Citead page with the full breakdown. Give it to the user."New value: +"Citead page that shows this analysis again, without publishing it to the public leaderboard. Give it to the user."

First observedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds rich context beyond them: deterministic rule-based computation, no storage, no API key, capped score for short texts, and what the score does not guarantee. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail that helps an agent set expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is informative but somewhat repetitive: it describes the return values and then re-explains the GEO score and naturalness. It could be tightened, and the most critical constraints are not front-loaded. Still readable and not excessively long.

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?

Given a read-only scoring tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, the scoring dimensions, the deterministic nature, the short-text cap, and privacy. No essential information is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including defaults and constraints. The description adds the accepted formats but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Compute the GEO score of a text with Citead') and lists accepted formats. It clearly conveys purpose. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'score_url', but the name and description make the distinction obvious.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'Compute the GEO score of a text' and the accepted input formats. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs the sibling score_url or any alternatives/exclusions. It's adequate but leaves the agent to infer the scenario.

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

All Citead GEO Score tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Let your AI agent see the webWeb-to-screenshot MCP for Claude, Cursor and Codex. No cookie banners. Free to start.snap-render.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?