aio-geo

List fixes

list_fixes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return a dry-run structural fix pack (robots, schema, anchors) for a public domain. No files are written. No API key required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No	Public domain or https URL to inspect (for example example.com or https://example.com). Localhost and private IPs are blocked.
`domain`	No	Alias of url. Use either url or domain, not both.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes
`error`	No
`files`	No	Proposed files in the dry-run pack
`domain`	No
`dryRun`	Yes	Public endpoint always true — no files are written

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'No files are written' and 'No API key required,' reinforcing the read-only nature and providing extra context beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word earns its place, and it is highly concise without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, read-only behavior, and authentication requirements sufficiently.

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%, and both parameters (url and domain) have detailed descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Return) and the resource (a dry-run structural fix pack for robots, schema, anchors), which distinguishes it from siblings like apply_fix and audit_url. It is specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The dry-run and 'No files are written' wording implies this is for previewing fixes before applying, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The usage context is present but not fully elaborated.

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

All aio-geo tools Inspect

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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

The tool set has significant overlap: audit_url and rescore_url both run the same structural audit, and list_fixes vs apply_fix both generate fix packs (with apply_fix differing only by optional write access). This blurs boundaries and forces agents to rely on subtle wording to choose correctly.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (apply_fix, audit_url, check_health, get_brief, list_fixes, rescore_url). The verbs are distinct and clearly indicate the action, making the naming predictable and easy to parse.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool covers a specific step in the audit-to-fix workflow without excessive bloat or noticeable omissions.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is covered: audit (audit_url/rescore_url), brief (get_brief), and fixes (list_fixes/apply_fix), plus health check. Minor gap: no explicit tool to view detailed individual recommendations or manage applied fixes, but agents can work around this using the available outputs.

Resources

Need Help?