visibility_audit_infoExplain the MeSquared SEO/AEO website-readiness methodology, its measurement boundaries, and how to use the available scan tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tools | Yes | ||
| product | Yes | ||
| measures | Yes | ||
| free_scan_url | Yes | ||
| does_not_measure | Yes | ||
| measurement_layers | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / measurement_layersAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "enum": [
+ "measured",
+ "not_measured"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "status",
+ "description"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "product",
- "free_scan_url",
- "measures",
- "does_not_measure",
- "tools"
-]New value: +[
+ "product",
+ "free_scan_url",
+ "measures",
+ "does_not_measure",
+ "measurement_layers",
+ "tools"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it explains methodology and boundaries, not performing any scans itself. This goes beyond the annotations but doesn't provide details on response format, but the output schema covers that.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Explain the MeSquared SEO/AEO website-readiness methodology') and efficiently lists the additional scope. No words are wasted.
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 an informational tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is fully complete: it states the methodology, measurement boundaries, and usage guidance for scan tools. The output schema handles return format specifics, and the simplicity of the tool requires no further detail.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none exist, and the schema is already complete with no properties.
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 uses the specific verb 'Explain' and clearly identifies the resource: the MeSquared SEO/AEO website-readiness methodology, its measurement boundaries, and how to use scan tools. This strongly differentiates it from sibling tools compare_visibility and scan_visibility, which actually perform scans/comparisons rather than explaining the methodology.
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 states it explains how to use the available scan tools, which implies this tool should be consulted before performing scans. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the sibling tools as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: scan_visibility handles a single site, compare_visibility handles two sites, and visibility_audit_info provides explanatory context. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity.
The two primary tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (compare_visibility, scan_visibility). The third tool, visibility_audit_info, uses a noun-based name, which is a minor deviation but still clearly readable and thematically aligned.
With only 3 tools, the server is minimally scoped but appropriately covers its core functionality: single scan, comparison, and informational support. This is on the low end but well-suited for a focused visibility assessment service.
The tool set covers the primary operations needed for this domain: scanning one site, scanning and comparing two sites, and understanding the methodology. No critical gaps exist for a stateless scanning service, though historical scans or bulk operations are absent.