Checks if AI assistants name a local business. Free shareable report, honest fixes, no guarantees.
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.
Average 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: one is diagnostic (check visibility), the other is educational (how to appear). No overlap, agents can easily differentiate.
Both names use snake_case and are descriptive, but the pattern differs slightly: 'check_ai_visibility' is verb_noun, while 'how_to_appear_in_ai_search' is a phrase. Still, clear and predictable.
Two tools for a narrow domain (AI search visibility for local businesses) is reasonable. Could be expanded slightly, but the core function is covered adequately.
The tools cover the primary use cases: checking current visibility and learning how to improve. Missing advanced features like tracking changes, but no critical gaps for basic needs.
check_ai_visibilityAInspectCheck whether a local business currently appears when people ask AI engines (ChatGPT, Gemini, Google AI) to recommend a business in its category — and get a free, shareable Radveo report with the exact fixes to improve its odds of being named. Honest answer-engine optimization: improves the odds of being cited, never guarantees a placement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| website | No | The business website URL, e.g. https://joesplumbing.com. Optional if business_name is given; improves accuracy. | |
| location | No | City or region, e.g. "Seattle, WA". Optional but improves accuracy. | |
| business_name | No | The business name, e.g. "Joe's Plumbing". Provide this OR a website. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | False when the check could not be completed (bad input, rate limit, or the audit engine timed out). |
| note | Yes | Honesty framing: results improve odds and show what AI says today — never a guarantee of placement. |
| verdict | Yes | Whether AI engines named this business when asked customer-style recommendation questions. 'named' = at least one query named it; 'absent' = confidently not named; 'unknown' = the engines could not give a confident read; 'not_checked' = the live AI-answer probe did not run for this call (the on-page audit still did). |
| business | No | The business name or website that was checked. |
| seoGrade | No | Letter grade (A-D) for the readiness score, when measured. |
| seoScore | No | 0-100 on-page AI-visibility readiness score, when measured. |
| topFixes | No | The top fixes to improve the odds of being named (max 3 here; full list in the report). |
| reportUrl | Yes | Free, shareable, public report URL for this check. |
| enginesChecked | No | The AI engine panel the probes consult — an indicative read of how AI assistants tend to answer, not a live probe of every public engine. |
| queriesChecked | No | The customer-style questions asked to the AI engines (empty when the probe didn't run). |
| competitorsNamed | No | Businesses surfaced instead of this one (deduped). Same list the public shareable report shows. |
| aiVisibilityScore | No | 0-100: the share of customer-style AI queries that named the business. Null when the probe didn't produce a measured score. |
| competitorsSource | No | 'ai' = an AI engine named them; 'places' = real local leaders from Google's local results (shown when the engines named none). Null when no competitors surfaced. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses honest nature, improves odds without guarantees. Name 'check' and context hint read-only behavior. Could add more on data source or limits.
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?
Two concise sentences plus a tagline. No wasted words, front-loaded with main action.
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 3 optional params and an output schema, description covers purpose, output, and caveat adequately.
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%, but description adds value by explaining optionality and improvement in accuracy for each parameter, beyond 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?
Description clearly states the tool checks AI visibility for a business and provides a report. Distinguishes from sibling 'how_to_appear_in_ai_search' by focusing on checking current appearance rather than general guidance.
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?
Implies use before sibling for diagnosis, and mentions 'free, shareable Radveo report with fixes'. However, does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparison with the sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
how_to_appear_in_ai_searchAInspectGet Radveo's honest, practical playbook for getting a local business found and cited inside AI engine answers (ChatGPT, Gemini, Google AI Overviews) — answer-engine optimization (AEO) steps any owner can act on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | |
| note | Yes | Honesty framing: these steps improve odds, they never guarantee placement. |
| steps | Yes | The AEO steps, in order. Empty only when the server is rate-limiting. |
| freeCheckUrl | Yes | Where to run the free AI-visibility check. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes an informational, read-only tool without side effects or destructive behavior. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, concise and informative. No wasted words.
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?
With no parameters, an output schema, and a sibling tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and its audience. Complete for an informational playbook tool.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline score of 4 is appropriate. Description does not need to add parameter details.
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 provides a practical playbook for local business AEO, specific to AI search visibility. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'check_ai_visibility' by offering actionable steps rather than a diagnostic check.
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?
It implies the tool is for business owners seeking to improve AI search presence but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. The sibling tool name provides context for differentiation.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
