Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Red Center Studio free tools

by io.github.Red-Center-Studio
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

GEO audit

geo_audit
Read-only

Check how ready a public website is for AI assistants and search engines: AI crawler access in robots.txt, sitemap, llms.txt, structured data, titles and page basics. Returns a score out of 100, each check with pass, warn or fail, and copy-paste fixes. Reads the home page, robots.txt, sitemap.xml and llms.txt only. Free, no key. Rate limited per connection.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "geo_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe website address, for example example.com or https://www.example.com/.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only tell us this is a read-only, open-world operation; the description adds substantially more: the exact four resources fetched, that no API key is needed, that it is rate limited per connection, and that results come back as a score out of 100 with pass/warn/fail per check plus copy-paste fixes. The rate-limit and read-scope disclosures are exactly the operational constraints an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: capability and checks first, return shape second, operational constraints (read scope, free, rate limit) last. No repetition of the name or title and no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description fully describes the return value (score out of 100, per-check pass/warn/fail, copy-paste fixes), so the agent knows what to expect. Combined with the read-scope and rate-limit disclosures, nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool is missing.

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% for the single url parameter, so the format guidance is already in the schema. The description adds only the qualifier 'public website,' which implies the target must be externally reachable, but gives no additional syntax or normalization detail. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Check how ready a public website is for AI assistants and search engines') and then enumerates exactly what is inspected: robots.txt crawler access, sitemap, llms.txt, structured data, titles and page basics. An agent knows precisely what the tool does without opening the schema, and the sibling tools (decode_error, spof_scan) are clearly unrelated operations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Usage context is clear: it applies to public websites and only reads the home page, robots.txt, sitemap.xml and llms.txt, so an agent knows the boundaries of applicability. It also states 'Free, no key,' removing auth prerequisites as a consideration. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative for non-public or non-web targets.

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

All Red Center Studio free tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources