Skip to main content
Glama

radveo

by com.radveo

check_ai_visibility

Score how ready a local business is to be named when people ask AI engines (ChatGPT, Gemini, Google AI) for a recommendation in its category, and get a free, shareable Radveo report with the exact fixes to improve its odds. Scores readiness from the business's own site; it does not query an engine live. Honest answer-engine optimization: improves the odds of being cited, never guarantees a placement.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
websiteNoThe business website URL, e.g. https://joesplumbing.com. Optional if business_name is given; improves accuracy.
locationNoCity or region, e.g. "Seattle, WA". Optional but improves accuracy.
business_nameNoThe business name, e.g. "Joe's Plumbing". Provide this OR a website.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesFalse when the check could not be completed (bad input, rate limit, or the audit engine timed out).
noteYesHonesty framing: an indicative, measured read of how AI assistants tend to answer, never a guarantee of placement.
verdictYesWhether 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).
businessNoThe business name or website that was checked.
seoGradeNoLetter grade (A-D) for the readiness score, when measured.
seoScoreNo0-100 on-page AI-visibility readiness score, when measured.
topFixesNoThe top fixes to improve the odds of being named (max 3 here; full list in the report).
reportUrlYesFree, shareable, public report URL for this check.
enginesCheckedNoThe AI engine panel the probes consult: an indicative read of how AI assistants tend to answer, not a live probe of every public engine.
queriesCheckedNoThe customer-style questions asked to the AI engines (empty when the probe didn't run).
competitorsNamedNoBusinesses surfaced instead of this one (deduped). Same list the public shareable report shows.
aiVisibilityScoreNo0-100: the share of customer-style AI queries that named the business. Null when the probe didn't produce a measured score.
competitorsSourceNo'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.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it explicitly states the tool does not query an engine live, scores from the business's own site, and never guarantees placement. This discloses key behavioral limits and expectations beyond a generic 'assess' definition.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the most important behavioral caveat, then sets expectations about guarantees. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with an output schema and fully described optional parameters, the description covers the essential decision context: what it measures, how it measures it, what it returns, and its limits. The only real gap is not addressing the sibling tool or providing explicit selection guidance, which is already captured under usage guidelines.

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 parameter schema already documents website, location, and business_name including optionality and accuracy trade-offs. The description adds context about scoring from the business's own site but does not materially change parameter understanding.

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 names a specific action ('Score how ready a local business is'), a specific resource ('AI engines... recommendation'), and a concrete deliverable ('free, shareable Radveo report with exact fixes'). It also distinguishes itself from a generic guide by clarifying it evaluates readiness from the business's own site rather than querying an engine live.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description implies when to use it (when a local business wants to know its AI-citation readiness) but does not explicitly address when not to use it or how it differs from the sibling tool 'how_to_appear_in_ai_search'. No alternative or exclusion is mentioned, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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

All radveo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The two tools have distinct purposes: one provides a diagnostic score/report, the other offers an instructional playbook. They are clearly separate in function, though both relate to AI visibility. There is minimal risk of one being chosen when the other is intended.

Naming Consistency4/5

Both tool names use lowercase with underscores and are descriptive. 'check_ai_visibility' follows a verb_noun pattern, while 'how_to_appear_in_ai_search' is more of a phrase but still consistent in style and readability. The deviation is minor.

Tool Count3/5

With only two tools, the server feels thin for a domain like answer-engine optimization. While the two tools cover diagnosis and guidance, a more complete server might include additional tools such as generating reports or managing leads. The count is borderline but acceptable for a narrow niche.

Completeness3/5

The server covers two key aspects: assessing readiness and providing actionable steps. However, there are notable gaps—no tool for tracking progress, comparing competitors, or handling specific business categories. The surface is minimal and leaves room for expansion.

Resources