alice

Check AI visibility

check_ai_visibility

Read-only

Check whether AI names a website when buyers ask, and whether AI can read it. Starts a live check of one brand-name question and one buyer question on Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini (results fill in on the report link within about a minute), and returns a 0-100 AI readability score: which AI crawlers the site allows or blocks, whether content is server-rendered, structured-data coverage, and the highest-impact fixes. Use when someone asks whether ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or Google AI mention or cite their site, how their site appears to AI, whether AI can read or find it, or asks for an SEO or AI visibility audit of a URL.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Site or page URL. Scheme optional; https:// is assumed.
`full`	No	Include classic SEO, crawlability and analytics-tag sections. Default returns AI visibility only.
`locale`	No	Saved-report page language: en, zh-TW or ja. Independent of the scan market.	en
`country`	No	Scan market country code. Defaults to the page language’s market: us, tw or jp.
`language`	No	AI question/probe language code, e.g. en, zh-tw or ja. Defaults to the selected country’s language.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`gated`	No
`score`	Yes
`checks`	Yes
`ai_check`	No	The live brand-name / buyer-question check across the AI engines. status "checking" means the engines are still answering; the report_url shows the settled result.
`next_step`	Yes
`report_url`	No
`scanned_at`	No
`top_actions`	Yes
`score_breakdown`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / country

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Scan market country code. Defaults to the page language’s market: us, tw or jp.",
+  "enum": [
+    "af",
+    "al",
+    "dz",
+    "ad",
+    "ao",
+    "ag",
+    "ar",
+    "am",
+    "au",
+    "at",
+    "az",
+    "bs",
+    "bh",
+    "bd",
+    "bb",
+    "be",
+    "bz",
+    "bj",
+    "bt",
+    "bo",
+    "ba",
+    "bw",
+    "br",
+    "bn",
+    "bg",
+    "bf",
+    "bi",
+    "kh",
+    "cm",
+    "ca",
+    "cv",
+    "cf",
+    "td",
+    "cl",
+    "cn",
+    "co",
+    "km",
+    "cg",
+    "cd",
+    "cr",
+    "ci",
+    "hr",
+    "cy",
+    "cz",
+    "dk",
+    "dj",
+    "dm",
+    "do",
+    "ec",
+    "eg",
+    "sv",
+    "gq",
+    "er",
+    "ee",
+    "sz",
+    "et",
+    "fj",
+    "fi",
+    "fr",
+    "ga",
+    "gm",
+    "ge",
+    "de",
+    "gh",
+    "gr",
+    "gd",
+    "gt",
+    "gn",
+    "gw",
+    "gy",
+    "ht",
+    "hn",
+    "hk",
+    "hu",
+    "is",
+    "in",
+    "id",
+    "iq",
+    "ie",
+    "il",
+    "it",
+    "jm",
+    "jp",
+    "jo",
+    "kz",
+    "ke",
+    "ki",
+    "kw",
+    "kg",
+    "la",
+    "lv",
+    "lb",
+    "ls",
+    "lr",
+    "ly",
+    "li",
+    "lt",
+    "lu",
+    "mg",
+    "mw",
+    "my",
+    "mv",
+    "ml",
+    "mt",
+    "mh",
+    "mr",
+    "mu",
+    "mx",
+    "fm",
+    "md",
+    "mc",
+    "mn",
+    "me",
+    "ma",
+    "mz",
+    "mm",
+    "na",
+    "nr",
+    "np",
+    "nl",
+    "nz",
+    "ni",
+    "ne",
+    "ng",
+    "mk",
+    "no",
+    "om",
+    "pk",
+    "pw",
+    "ps",
+    "pa",
+    "pg",
+    "py",
+    "pe",
+    "ph",
+    "pl",
+    "pt",
+    "qa",
+    "ro",
+    "rw",
+    "kn",
+    "lc",
+    "vc",
+    "ws",
+    "sm",
+    "st",
+    "sa",
+    "sn",
+    "rs",
+    "sc",
+    "sl",
+    "sg",
+    "sk",
+    "si",
+    "sb",
+    "so",
+    "za",
+    "kr",
+    "es",
+    "lk",
+    "sr",
+    "se",
+    "ch",
+    "tw",
+    "tj",
+    "tz",
+    "th",
+    "tl",
+    "tg",
+    "to",
+    "tt",
+    "tn",
+    "tr",
+    "tm",
+    "tv",
+    "ug",
+    "ua",
+    "ae",
+    "gb",
+    "us",
+    "uy",
+    "uz",
+    "vu",
+    "va",
+    "ve",
+    "vn",
+    "ye",
+    "zm",
+    "zw"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / language

Added value: +{
+  "description": "AI question/probe language code, e.g. en, zh-tw or ja. Defaults to the selected country’s language.",
+  "enum": [
+    "ps",
+    "sq",
+    "ar",
+    "ca",
+    "pt",
+    "en",
+    "es",
+    "hy",
+    "de",
+    "az",
+    "bn",
+    "nl",
+    "fr",
+    "dz",
+    "bs",
+    "pt-br",
+    "ms",
+    "bg",
+    "km",
+    "zh-cn",
+    "hr",
+    "el",
+    "cs",
+    "da",
+    "ti",
+    "et",
+    "am",
+    "fi",
+    "ka",
+    "zh-tw",
+    "hu",
+    "is",
+    "id",
+    "iw",
+    "it",
+    "ja",
+    "kk",
+    "ky",
+    "lo",
+    "lv",
+    "lt",
+    "dv",
+    "mt",
+    "ro",
+    "mn",
+    "sr",
+    "my",
+    "ne",
+    "mk",
+    "no",
+    "ur",
+    "pl",
+    "rw",
+    "sk",
+    "sl",
+    "so",
+    "ko",
+    "si",
+    "sv",
+    "tg",
+    "sw",
+    "th",
+    "tr",
+    "tk",
+    "uk",
+    "uz",
+    "vi"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / locale

Added value: +{
+  "default": "en",
+  "description": "Saved-report page language: en, zh-TW or ja. Independent of the scan market.",
+  "enum": [
+    "en",
+    "zh-TW",
+    "ja"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds behavior the agent cannot get elsewhere: a ‘live’ asynchronous check whose results ‘fill in on the report link within about a minute’. It also enumerates what the returned score is built from (crawler allow/block rules, server-rendering, structured-data coverage, highest-impact fixes), which nothing in the structured fields discloses.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core question and followed by mechanism and triggers; nothing repeats the name or title. The second sentence is long and clause-heavy, but every clause (platforms, timing, score components, trigger phrases) carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting needn't be explained, yet the description still summarizes the score's composition and the async timing, which is exactly what an agent needs for a slow, open-world check. The only gap is silence on the optional full/locale/country/language knobs, which the schema covers adequately.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains url, full, locale, country and language. The description adds no parameter-level detail — it does not mention the full/SEO toggle, locale, country or language at all — so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('check whether AI names a website... and whether AI can read it'), then concretizes it: one brand question + one buyer question across Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini plus a 0-100 readability score. The single-URL scope also implicitly separates it from the sibling compare_ai_visibility, so an agent can route on it without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger list ('Use when someone asks whether ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or Google AI mention or cite their site... or asks for an SEO or AI visibility audit of a URL'), which is strong positive routing. It never names compare_ai_visibility or states when not to use this tool, so the alternative-selection clause is missing.

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

All alice tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Let your AI agent see the webWeb-to-screenshot MCP for Claude, Cursor and Codex. No cookie banners. Free to start.snap-render.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?