Check a domain's GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) score — how well the site is optimized for AI search engines like ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity. Returns three scores (Technical Readiness, Entity Readiness, Answer Readiness), AI crawler access status, structured data analysis, and prioritized recommendations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to check GEO score for (e.g. github.com) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses return values (three scores, AI crawler access, structured data analysis, recommendations) and implies a read-only check. It does not mention potential prerequisites or side effects, but for a checker tool this is reasonably 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates the key outputs. Every clause adds value with no fluff.
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?
The tool has one input parameter and no output schema, but the description lists the expected return content, which is adequate for a read-only checker with low complexity. It does not explain the scoring methodology, but that is not necessary for basic usage.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details, but no compensation is needed given full coverage.
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 checks a domain's GEO score and explains what GEO means, listing specific outputs. This is a specific verb+resource pairing and is distinct from sibling tools covering DNS, SSL, and uptime.
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 conveys when to use the tool: to check AI search engine optimization. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct from siblings to imply appropriate usage.
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.
