Skip to main content
Glama

placements

by com.essentras
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Score Google Knowledge Panel readiness

check_knowledge_panel_readiness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Free and read-only. Scores how ready a person or business is for a Google Knowledge Panel, the same score as the free Entity Readiness Check on essentras.com. Ask the person 11 multiple-choice questions about their sources and what Google shows today (never their name or links): the subject, the panel state, and coverage, quality, wikipedia, wikidata, home, profiles, records, demand, unique. With every answer it returns the score out of 100, the band, each gap with points to gain and the next action, the right next step (claim, edit or fix an existing panel for free, build sources, or the Essentras service with its current price for a strong candidate), and Google sources with read dates. With answers missing it returns the questions still to ask. The score is an Essentras rule of thumb, not a Google metric. Google decides whether to show a panel, and paid placements are paid editorial, not independent coverage.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
homeNoDo you have an official page that is only about you, with Person or Organization structured data? h2 = Yes, with structured data and sameAs links to my profiles; h1 = A page exists, but without structured data; h0 = No dedicated page.
stateNoWhat does Google show today when you search your exact name? none = No panel for me; unclaimed = A panel about me that I have not claimed; claimed = A panel I already manage; wrong = A panel with wrong facts, or mixed up with someone else.
demandNoDo people search for your name? Check Search Console for queries that contain your name, or see whether Google suggests your name as you type it. s2 = Yes, regularly; s1 = A little; s0 = No, or I do not know.
uniqueNoWhen you search your exact name, whose results dominate? u2 = Mostly mine; u1 = Mixed with other people or things; u0 = Mostly someone or something else.
qualityNoWhat is the strongest coverage you have? q0 = Nothing yet; q1 = Press releases, sponsored or paid articles, or my own posts; q2 = Trade, local or niche outlets with editorial staff; q3 = National or international outlets with editorial staff.
recordsNoAre you listed in the reference databases of your field? Business: company registry, Crunchbase. Author: ISBN or library records. Musician: MusicBrainz, Discogs. Film: IMDb. Researcher: ORCID, Google Scholar. r2 = Yes, in 2 or more; r1 = Yes, in 1; r0 = Not yet.
subjectNoWho is the panel for? person = A person (Founder, executive, author, creator, artist or expert); business = A business or organization (Company, brand, nonprofit or product).
coverageNoHow many independent articles are mainly about you, on sites you do not control? Count articles where you are the main subject. Leave out your own site, your profiles, press releases and anything you paid for. c0 = None yet; c1 = 1 to 2; c3 = 3 to 5; c6 = 6 or more.
profilesNoDo your main profiles use the same name, title and description, and link to that page? LinkedIn, X, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, Crunchbase, author or artist profiles. p2 = Yes, all of them; p1 = Some of them; p0 = No, they differ.
wikidataNoIs there a Wikidata item about you? d2 = Yes, with references to independent sources; d1 = Yes, but with few or no references; d0 = No, or I do not know.
wikipediaNoIs there a Wikipedia article about you? w1 = Yes; w0 = No.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/openWorld/idempotent, so the description's additive value is the caveats: 'The score is an Essentras rule of thumb, not a Google metric. Google decides whether to show a panel, and paid placements are paid editorial, not independent coverage.' It also describes the return payload in detail. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but for a free read-only scorer that is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with free/read-only and the core purpose, then the answer topics and the return payload. It is dense and long, but each sentence carries distinct information (inputs, outputs, caveats) with little filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, and it does thoroughly: score out of 100, band, each gap with points and next action, the recommended next step, and Google sources with read dates, plus partial-result behavior ('With answers missing it returns the questions still to ask'). It also clarifies score provenance limits.

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% with all 11 enums fully documented, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description enumerates the same topic list ('subject, the panel state, and coverage, quality, wikipedia...') and adds one useful constraint ('never their name or links'), but largely restates what the schema provides.

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+resource: 'Scores how ready a person or business is for a Google Knowledge Panel.' It further anchors the tool to a named feature ('the same score as the free Entity Readiness Check on essentras.com') and is clearly distinct from siblings like check_wikipedia_notability or check_review_removability.

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?

Gives strong context: 'Free and read-only,' and instructs the agent to 'Ask the person 11 multiple-choice questions about their sources and what Google shows today (never their name or links).' However, it never explicitly contrasts when to choose this tool over the sibling readiness checks (e.g. wikipedia notability), so 5 is not warranted.

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

All placements toolsInspect
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.

Resources