Skip to main content
Glama

Outrings Web Intelligence

by com.outrings
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check whether AI assistants can read and cite a site

check_ai_visibility
Read-onlyIdempotent

Measures technical crawler access and the page signals that affect whether an AI system can retrieve and parse a site. Reports, per crawler, whether GPTBot, OAI-SearchBot, ChatGPT-User, ClaudeBot, Claude-SearchBot, Claude-User, PerplexityBot, Google-Extended, Googlebot, Bingbot, Applebot-Extended and CCBot are allowed or blocked, naming the exact robots.txt rule responsible. Also checks whether content is served in HTML rather than requiring JavaScript, whether structured data is present and valid, and whether llms.txt exists. It also requests the page as Googlebot, Bingbot, OAI-SearchBot, PerplexityBot, GPTBot and ClaudeBot and compares each response with what a browser receives, reporting the robots.txt policy and what the server actually returned as separate columns. Crawler identity is declared in the User-Agent and not proven, so a refusal may not apply to the real crawler. It does NOT determine whether an assistant will rank, select, mention or cite the page: access is a precondition for citation, not a cause of it, and the crawlers serve different purposes — for OpenAI, OAI-SearchBot governs eligibility for ChatGPT search while GPTBot relates to model training. Use this to rule out or confirm a technical blocker, and say plainly that ranking and selection are outside what any measurement here can establish.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe website to inspect. A bare domain works — "example.com" is treated as https://example.com.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
nameNo
scoreYesTechnical retrievability only. Not a prediction of citation.
countsNoChecks by status. The last five are undetermined states and are never scored as passes.
categoryYes
problemsNoBlocked crawlers and missing signals, each naming the rule responsible.
passingCountNo
undeterminedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "category": {
+      "const": "ai",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "counts": {
+      "description": "Checks by status. The last five are undetermined states and are never scored as passes.",
+      "properties": {
+        "blocked": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "fail": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "inconclusive": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "info": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "na": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "pass": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "requires_browser": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "timeout": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "unknown": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "warn": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "passingCount": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "problems": {
+      "description": "Blocked crawlers and missing signals, each naming the rule responsible.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "fix": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "found": {
+            "description": "What was actually observed.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Stable check id, e.g. sec.csp.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "severity": {
+            "enum": [
+              "low",
+              "medium",
+              "high",
+              "critical",
+              null
+            ],
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "enum": [
+              "fail",
+              "warn"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "why": {
+            "description": "Why it matters. Our reading, not the observation.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "description": "Technical retrievability only. Not a prediction of citation.",
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "undetermined": {
+      "items": {
+        "description": "A check that reached no verdict. Report it as undetermined, never as a pass.",
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "reason": {
+            "enum": [
+              "unknown",
+              "blocked",
+              "timeout",
+              "inconclusive",
+              "requires_browser"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "url",
+    "category",
+    "score"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses a critical limitation: crawler identity is declared in User-Agent and not proven, so a refusal may not apply to the real crawler. It also explains the distinct purposes of OAI-SearchBot vs GPTBot and that it compares server responses with browser responses, adding substantial behavioral context.

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?

Although long, the description is dense and well-structured: it opens with the main purpose, lists specific crawlers and checks, explains the request-comparison behavior, discloses the User-Agent limitation, and ends with precise usage guidance. Every sentence provides distinct, necessary information with no redundancy.

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?

For a tool with this complexity (many crawlers, multiple checks, request simulation), the description covers all essential aspects: what it measures, what it returns (via implication of columns), limitations, and what it explicitly does not do. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description fills all other gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'url' parameter (domain handling, bare domain). The tool description does not add extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the tool measures technical crawler access and page signals affecting AI retrieval, and enumerates specific crawlers and checks (HTML, structured data, llms.txt). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating what it does NOT determine (ranking/selection), making its scope unmistakable.

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?

The description explicitly says to use it to rule out or confirm a technical blocker and warns that ranking and selection are outside what it can establish. It provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, effectively routing agents to the correct tool for the intended purpose.

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

All Outrings Web Intelligence 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