Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ai-visibility-scanner

by io.github.edelgad3
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Compare two websites' AI visibility

compare_scan
Read-onlyIdempotent

Runs the free website check on two public websites, for example a site and a competitor's site, and returns both free results side by side with the differences between their scores.

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>",
      "competitor_url": "<competitor_url>"
    },
    "name": "compare_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe first public website address
max_pagesNoPages to load. The free check loads at most 5; larger values are reduced to 5.
competitor_urlYesThe second public website address to compare against

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / competitor_url / description
      Added value: +"The second public website address to compare against"
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_pages / description
      Added value: +"Pages to load. The free check loads at most 5; larger values are reduced to 5."
    • changedInput schema / properties / max_pages / maximum
      Previous value: -10New value: +20
    • addedInput schema / properties / url / description
      Added value: +"The first public website address"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / competitor_url / maxLength
      Added value: +2048
    • addedInput schema / properties / url / maxLength
      Added value: +2048
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (side-by-side results plus score differences) and the constraint that both sites must be public, which an agent could not get from the annotations alone.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and packs purpose, example use case, and return content with no redundant wording. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns well, and it does state that both results come back side by side with score differences. For a simple three-parameter read-only tool this is nearly complete; only the pagination/scope cap for max_pages is left entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, with url, competitor_url and max_pages all documented in the schema including the 5-page cap behavior. The description only reinforces that two distinct public addresses are expected and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Runs the free website check on two public websites' and clarifies the output is 'both free results side by side with the differences between their scores'. The dual-URL scope implicitly distinguishes it from the single-site scan_website sibling, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation requires inference.

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 phrase 'for example a site and a competitor's site' implies the comparative use case, which gives some when-to-use signal. However, it never explicitly says when to pick this over scan_website or get_fix_pack, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

All ai-visibility-scanner 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