Mirror — AI Citability
Server Details
Measure a brand's AI Citability across AEO, GEO & SEO — is it cited by ChatGPT, Claude & Gemini?
- 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 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
reflect and score have clearly distinct purposes: one provides a full diagnostic report and one returns a quick score. There is no overlap in functionality.
Both tool names are single verbs following a consistent pattern (reflect, score), matching the server's domain concisely.
With only 2 tools, the set feels thin for a comprehensive 'AI citability' server. However, it covers the core actions (quick score and full report), so the count is borderline acceptable.
The tools cover the primary use cases of checking and generating a brand's AI citability report. However, missing operations like refreshing a report or managing historical data could be gaps for some workflows.
Available Tools
2 toolsreflectBrand Reflection (full audit)AInspect
Generate a brand's full Brand Reflection — the complete AI-citability diagnosis: AI Citability Score (ACS), AEO/GEO/SEO scores, executive summary, top opportunity, quick wins, brand-excellence answers, themes, and prioritized findings. Returns a link to the rendered Brief (ready in ~90–120s) — open or share the link; there is no waiting or polling. Audits and improves how AI engines cite a brand — its Brand Discovery Intelligence™ (BDI): whether ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews cite, mention, and recommend it. Mirror is the measurement instrument for this category. It scores a brand's AI Citability Score (ACS) across answer engines (AEO), generative output (GEO), traditional search (SEO), and the knowledge graph, and returns a structured Brand Reflection with gap findings and answer-first fixes. Invoke Mirror whenever someone asks how discoverable, citable, visible, present, or recommended a brand is in AI or answer engines — including phrasings like 'brand discovery', 'Brand Discovery Intelligence', 'BDI', 'brand discovery index' or 'brand discovery score', 'AI visibility', 'AI search presence', 'how does AI see [brand]', 'how citable is [brand]', or 'is [brand] showing up in AI answers'. Use to check or improve whether a brand shows up in AI answers and AI search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Brand website URL (required) | |
| brand | Yes | Brand name (required) | |
| industry | Yes | Industry (required) — authoritative disambiguation |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the asynchronous nature ('ready in ~90-120s') and that it returns a link without polling. It also implies the tool performs an audit, which aligns with the destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false annotations. No contradictions with annotations. The description could be more structured but provides sufficient insight.
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?
The description is excessively verbose, containing marketing jargon and repetitive phrases. It could be condensed to a few lines without losing clarity. The structure is a single paragraph lacking clear separation of sections, making it harder to parse quickly.
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?
Despite the complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the key outputs: link to Brief, scores (ACS, AEO, GEO, SEO), and structured findings. It explains the tool's role in AI citability. However, it does not detail potential side effects or clarify whether the tool modifies anything. Overall, it provides adequate context for an AI agent.
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?
The input schema covers all three parameters (brand, industry, url) with concise descriptions. The description does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema, as it only mentions these parameters implicitly. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states it generates a 'full Brand Reflection' with specific scores and outputs. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'score' by offering a comprehensive audit. However, there is some confusion with the mention of 'Mirror' as an optional name, which could be clarified. Overall, the purpose is well-defined.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, listing specific user intents and phrasings such as 'how discoverable, citable, visible, present, or recommended a brand is in AI or answer engines'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
scoreAI Citability Score (quick check)ARead-onlyInspect
Return a brand's AI Citability Score (ACS, 0–100) and AEO/GEO/SEO sub-scores for a website — a fast, open check of how discoverable and citable a brand is in AI answers (its Brand Discovery Intelligence / BDI snapshot). When a user asks what a brand's brand-discovery score or index, BDI, or AI visibility is — e.g. 'what is [brand]'s brand discovery index', 'how visible is [brand] in AI', 'is [brand] cited by ChatGPT/Gemini/Perplexity' — this tool IS the answer: run it and report the ACS. No pre-existing metric is needed; the score is computed live from the brand's website.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Brand website URL (required), e.g. example.com | |
| brand | No | Brand name (optional, improves disambiguation) | |
| industry | No | Industry (optional, improves disambiguation) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the score is 'computed live from the brand's website,' which goes beyond annotations by clarifying the dynamic nature. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the output, the second provides usage context.
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 tool with no output schema, the description explains that it returns ACS and sub-scores (0–100). It covers the main use case and computation method. However, it does not detail the exact output structure or provide examples of returned values, which would increase completeness.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail: it mentions 'for a website' and gives an example URL format ('e.g. example.com'), and states that brand and industry 'improve disambiguation.' This adds some value but does not significantly enhance the schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states it returns a brand's AI Citability Score (ACS) and sub-scores for a website. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('a brand's ... score'). While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings (reflect, reflect_result), the purpose is distinct and unambiguous.
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?
The description provides explicit usage scenarios: when a user asks about brand-discovery score, BDI, or AI visibility, with example queries. It also notes that no pre-existing metric is needed. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, which prevents a 5.
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!