Skip to main content
Glama

AEO Scanner

by io.github.Convrgent

audit_site

Read-only

Full AI visibility audit across 77+ checks in 12 categories (4 AEO + 4 GEO + 4 Agent Readiness). Returns detailed per-check scores with specific issues and recommendations, AI Identity Card with mention readiness and detected competitors, and business profile. GEO checks include 3 research-backed citation signals: factual density, answer frontloading, and source citations. Agent Readiness covers emerging agent-discovery standards Cloudflare's isitagentready.com evaluates: RFC 9727 api-catalog, SEP-1649 MCP Server Card, and IETF Content-Signal (draft-romm-aipref). Does NOT generate fix code — pass this response's id as scan_id to fix_site (within 1 hour) to get fixes WITHOUT a re-crawl, or use compare_sites to benchmark against a competitor. Pay per call ($1.00) via x402 — USDC on Base or Solana. Machine payment via signed X-PAYMENT header; see https://www.x402.org/. On payment_required, the response includes the full x402 payload with payTo/amount/asset.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFull URL to audit
pagesNoNumber of pages to audit (1-10)
categoriesNoFilter to specific categories: structured_data, meta_technical, ai_accessibility, content_quality, brand_narrative, citation_readiness, authority_signals, entity_definition, machine_identity, api_discoverability, structured_actions, programmatic_access

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate read-only behavior. It adds valuable context about payment ($1.00 via x402), the x402 payload on payment_required, and the one-hour window for using the id with fix_site. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then detailing categories, checks, payment, and sibling tool relations. While it is longer than necessary, every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (per-check scores, AI Identity Card, business profile) and the payment flow. It covers all essential aspects for correct invocation and interpretation, making it highly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the audit spans 12 categories (mapping to the categories parameter options) and details checks like GEO signals and Agent Readiness. This helps the agent understand the scope of each parameter.

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 performs a full AI visibility audit with 77+ checks in 12 categories, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fix_site (which generates fixes) and compare_sites (benchmarking). It also explicitly says what it does NOT do (generate fix code), leaving no ambiguity.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it instructs to pass the response id to fix_site for fixes and mentions compare_sites for benchmarking. It also notes the payment requirement and x402 protocol, making usage conditions clear.

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

All AEO Scanner 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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: quick free scan, full paid audit, fix generation, and competitive comparison. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use verb_noun pattern (scan_site, audit_site, fix_site, compare_sites) with clear, descriptive verbs and consistent formatting.

Tool Count5/5

4 tools is a compact yet complete set for the domain, covering the essential workflows without bloat.

Completeness4/5

Covers scanning, detailed auditing, fix generation, and competitive comparison. Minor gaps like history or update/delete tools but core workflows are fully supported.

Resources