check_ai_visibility
Check whether AI answer-engines recommend a brand: 0-100 score, competitors winning, GEO fix-list. Paid: $4 USDC via x402.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| brand | Yes | ||
| category | No |
agents
by com.vevang
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool is paid ($4 USDC via x402) and gives output structure (0-100 score, competitors, GEO fix-list). Since no annotations are provided, this adds valuable 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?
Two concise sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core purpose and key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, but missing parameter semantics and usage guidance make it less complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what each parameter (url, brand, category) means or how to use them. Only 'brand' is required, but no details.
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's purpose: checking AI answer-engine visibility for a brand, with a 0-100 score, competitor info, and GEO fix-list. It distinguishes from siblings which are about general web data extraction or page reading.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like extract_web_data or read_web_page. The mention of payment is a constraint but not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action: checking AI visibility, extracting structured data, listing agents, making videos, reading web pages, and verifying outputs. No overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., check_ai_visibility, extract_web_data, list_vevang_agents), which is predictable and clear.
Tool Count5/5
6 tools is a well-scoped set for a general-purpose agent toolkit, covering a range of useful actions without being overwhelming or too sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core operations like checking, extracting, creating, reading, and verifying, but could benefit from a search or management tool for agents, though it is largely complete for its stated purpose.