TOP GUN GEO-Lens
Server Details
Brand visibility auditing across LLMs, AI search, and answer engines with GEO reports and scores.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- Spacemandomains/top_gun_mcp_server
- GitHub Stars
- 1
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.6/5.
Each tool targets a distinct purpose: full audit, quick check, and payment info. No overlap; descriptions explicitly contrast them.
Snake_case used consistently, but verb-noun pattern is mixed (audit_brand vs get_payment_info vs geo_quick_check). Still clear and predictable.
3 tools is well-scoped for a focused brand visibility service—covers the core actions without bloat.
Covers full audit, quick check, and payment details. Minor gap: no tool for viewing historical audits or managing account, but acceptable for a pay-per-use service.
Available Tools
3 toolsaudit_brandAInspect
Full brand visibility audit across LLM-indexed sources (Brave + Exa, 10 results). Returns a visibility score (0–100), score label, top 5 citation URLs, LLM index status, and 6 actionable GEO recommendations. Costs $1.50 USDC. For a quick snapshot at $0.05 use geo_quick_check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Brand name, company, or product to audit (e.g. 'Anthropic', 'Linear', 'Vercel') | |
| paymentToken | No | Stripe checkout session ID from a completed $1.50 USDC payment. If omitted, the tool returns a payment link instead of audit results. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses sources (Brave+Exa, 10 results), output components (score, label, URLs, etc.), cost, and payment behavior (if paymentToken omitted returns payment link). No annotations, but description fully covers behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and deliverables, no unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Explains output structure and payment mechanism, but lacks details on error handling or interpretation of certain outputs (e.g., 'GEO recommendations'). Still sufficient for an agent to use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. Description does not add additional parameter context beyond the schema descriptions, which are already clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it performs a 'Full brand visibility audit across LLM-indexed sources' and distinguishes from sibling 'geo_quick_check' by contrasting with a quick snapshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides alternative use case: 'For a quick snapshot at $0.05 use geo_quick_check.' Also mentions cost, helping agents decide when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
geo_quick_checkAInspect
Quick brand visibility snapshot across LLM-indexed sources. Returns a score (0–100), top 3 citation URLs, and 2 quick improvement tips. Single-source search (5 results). Costs $0.05 USDC. For full citations, LLM index status, and 6 GEO recommendations use audit_brand ($1.50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Brand name, company, or product to check (e.g. 'Stripe', 'Notion', 'Acme') | |
| paymentToken | No | Stripe checkout session ID from a completed $0.05 USDC payment. If omitted, the tool returns a payment link. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses cost, single-source nature, and 5-result limit. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It doesn't detail error handling or data usage, but the behavior is largely transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences that efficiently cover purpose, outputs, cost, and sibling comparison. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers outputs, scope, cost, and alternative. Lacks explanation of scoring methodology or what qualifies as a citation, but sufficient for a simple tool with good schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already in the schema, especially for paymentToken which is nearly identical.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides a 'quick brand visibility snapshot' and specifies the outputs: score (0–100), top 3 citation URLs, and 2 tips. It distinguishes from the sibling audit_brand by contrasting the depth and cost.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool (quick snapshot, $0.05) and when to use audit_brand instead (full details, $1.50). Also notes payment requirement and omission behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_payment_infoAInspect
Get payment URLs and USDC wallet address for both audit tiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits beyond the name. It only mentions the returned data, not whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 11 words that conveys the essential purpose without any filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no inputs and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. The phrase 'both audit tiers' is slightly vague but acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline is 4, and the description does not add parameter info but it's unnecessary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'payment URLs and USDC wallet address for both audit tiers', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like audit_brand or geo_quick_check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!