MeSquared Visibility
Server Details
Public-site SEO/AEO readiness scans with evidence scores, issues, and clear measurement scope.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: compare_visibility for two-site comparison, scan_visibility for single-site scan, and visibility_audit_info for methodology explanation. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use a consistent verb_noun pattern (compare_visibility, scan_visibility) or noun_noun (visibility_audit_info) with underscores, maintaining a uniform naming style across the set.
Three tools is ideal for a specialized visibility scanner—covering single scan, comparison, and documentation—without unnecessary bloat or gaps.
The tool surface covers core scanning and comparison tasks, plus a helpful info tool. Minor gaps like data persistence or user account management are not expected for a simple scanning server.
Available Tools
3 toolscompare_visibilityCompare SEO/AEO Website ReadinessARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Run public-site SEO/AEO website-readiness scans for two business websites and compare aggregate scores, selected evidence, site signals, and top issues. This is a readiness comparison, not observed rank or live citation benchmarking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| first_url | Yes | The first business website URL, such as example.com. | |
| second_url | Yes | The second business website URL, such as competitor.com. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| first | Yes | |
| second | Yes | |
| winner | Yes | |
| score_gap | Yes | |
| full_scan_url | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover safety, idempotency, and read-only nature. The description adds behavioral context by clarifying the scope (readiness comparison, not benchmarking) and what the output includes (aggregate scores, evidence, signals, issues). No contradictions.
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 two sentences: first states the core functionality, second clarifies what it does not do. No filler words, each sentence serves a purpose. Front-loaded with the main action.
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?
Given the tool has two required parameters, output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It explains the output types and the scope, leaving no ambiguity for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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% with descriptions for both URL parameters. The description reinforces that the tool compares two business websites but doesn't add new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline score is appropriate.
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's purpose: run SEO/AEO readiness scans for two websites and compare scores, evidence, signals, and issues. It explicitly distinguishes this from rank or citation benchmarking, differentiating from siblings like scan_visibility (single site scan) and visibility_audit_info.
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 context by stating what the tool does and what it does not do (not observed rank/citation benchmarking). While it doesn't explicitly mention when to use vs siblings, the contrast with scanning a single site is implied. The 'not for' statement helps guide appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
scan_visibilityScan SEO/AEO Website ReadinessARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Run a public-site SEO/AEO website-readiness scan for one business website. Returns aggregate readiness scores, selected technical and answer-quality evidence, site signals, and prioritized issues. This does not measure observed rankings, Search Console performance, or live AI mentions/citations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The business website URL to scan, such as example.com. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | |
| score | Yes | |
| summary | Yes | |
| audit_id | Yes | |
| aeo_score | Yes | |
| geo_score | Yes | |
| seo_score | Yes | |
| top_issues | Yes | |
| site_signals | No | |
| full_scan_url | Yes | |
| score_profile | Yes | |
| score_components | No | |
| measurement_scope | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, signaling a safe read operation. The description adds transparency by specifying what the tool does NOT measure (rankings, Search Console, AI mentions), providing behavioral 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence crisply states the action and output, while the second sentence lists exclusions. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the single parameter, comprehensive annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, outputs, and limitations. The agent can confidently decide when to invoke this tool and what to expect.
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?
The input schema covers the single parameter 'url' with a description. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the tool description adds no additional parameter-specific detail. The description mentions 'public-site' and 'business website' in context, which aligns with the parameter but doesn't enhance semantic understanding beyond the schema.
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 runs a 'public-site SEO/AEO website-readiness scan for one business website' and lists what it returns (aggregate readiness scores, evidence, issues). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a single-site scan, while compare_visibility and visibility_audit_info likely offer comparisons or audit information.
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 sets clear boundaries: it measures readiness, not observed rankings, Search Console performance, or AI mentions. This implicitly guides the agent to use this tool when readiness metrics are needed and to use alternatives for other metrics. An explicit when-to-use statement would elevate this to a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
visibility_audit_infoVisibility Audit InformationARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Explain the MeSquared SEO/AEO website-readiness methodology, its measurement boundaries, and how to use the available scan tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| tools | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| measures | Yes | |
| free_scan_url | Yes | |
| does_not_measure | Yes | |
| measurement_layers | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover behavioral traits (read-only, idempotent, etc.). The description adds context about content but not additional behavioral disclosures. No contradiction.
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?
Single sentence conveys necessary information efficiently. Could be slightly more structured but no redundant content.
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 parameterless info tool with an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool provides. The output schema likely details return format.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the tool's informational purpose, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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 explicitly states the tool explains a specific methodology, boundaries, and scan tool usage. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools 'scan_visibility' and 'compare_visibility' which are action-oriented.
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 implies the tool is for understanding methodology before using scan tools, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or not use it, or mention of alternatives.
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!