A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceTrack brand visibility across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, and Gemini.
6
32 npm
9
MIT
AI Visibility Checker
Server Details
Free, no signup. Check if ChatGPT, Perplexity & Google AI recommend a brand in 15 markets (GEO/AEO).
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Uptime
- 100.0% over 36 days
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
- URL
TDQS
A4/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation4/5
The two tools target clearly different questions: one checks website technical readiness for AI crawlers, and the other estimates brand visibility in LLM prompts. Their names are similar but the descriptions clearly separate readiness from visibility, leaving little real ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow the same check_<object> pattern: check_agent_readiness and check_ai_visibility. The naming convention is consistent and predictable.
Tool Count3/5
With only two tools, the server is on the thin side, but both tools serve a distinct aspect of the stated purpose. The count is borderline but not unreasonable for a focused read-only checker.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the two main aspects of AI visibility: website readiness for agents and brand presence in LLM responses. Minor gaps exist, such as no combined summary or monitoring tool, but the core read-only workflow is self-contained.
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_agent_readinessCheck Agent ReadinessARead-onlyInspect
Read-only audit of whether a public website is ready for AI agents: crawler access, llms.txt, structured data, discovery files, and metadata. Returns a 0-100 score and specific gaps. Free.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Website URL to audit (https://...). |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | No | |
| kind | No | |
| score | No | |
| checks | No | |
| blocked | No | |
| disclaimer | No | |
| dataUseNotice | No |
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it returns a 0-100 score and specific gaps, and it is free. This gives an agent a clear idea of what invoking the tool will produce.
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?
The description is two tight sentences, front-loads the read-only nature, lists the audit dimensions, and states the output form. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read-only audit tool with a rich description, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. An agent has what it needs 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single url parameter, so the schema already handles parameter documentation. The description adds only a slight contextual nuance ('public website') without providing additional parameter semantics.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('audit'), the target resource ('public website'), and the scope ('AI agent readiness') with concrete checklist items. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool check_ai_visibility.
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 intended use case is implied: use this to audit a public website's AI-readiness and get a readiness score. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over check_ai_visibility or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_ai_visibilityCheck AI VisibilityARead-onlyInspect
Read-only estimate of brand visibility in a representative large-language-model buyer-prompt sample. It is not a measurement or ranking from ChatGPT, OpenAI, or any named assistant. Returns a 0-100 proxy score, named competitors, and top fixes. Free.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Optional website URL to improve the audit. | |
| brand | Yes | Brand or company name to check. | |
| market | No | Optional market: us, uk, jp, kr, de, fr, es, br, in. Default us. | |
| category | Yes | Category buyers ask AI about, e.g. 'project management software'. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| brand | No | |
| score | No | AI Visibility Score 0-100 |
| total | No | |
| market | No | |
| category | No | |
| mentions | No | |
| topFixes | No | Up to three practical public-site improvements |
| disclaimer | No | |
| competitors | No | Other brands named in the representative sample |
| mentionRate | No | |
| dataUseNotice | No |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the result is a proxy estimate rather than an official measurement, it uses a representative sample, and it returns a 0-100 score, named competitors, and top fixes. The read-only claim aligns with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, with 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the action, adds the key caveat, lists return contents, and notes cost in three short sentences. Every sentence contributes useful, non-redundant 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?
Given the rich schema and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough functional and behavioral context for a straightforward read-only estimate tool. It is incomplete only in not guiding selection between this tool and check_agent_readiness.
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 input schema already fully documents brand, category, url, and market. The description does not repeat parameter details, but it indirectly connects brand/category to the visibility estimate. That meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description identifies a specific verb and resource: a 'read-only estimate of brand visibility in a representative large-language-model buyer-prompt sample.' It also clarifies what the tool is not, i.e., not an official ChatGPT/OpenAI measurement or ranking. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling check_agent_readiness, so it stops short of a 5.
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 intended use is implied: use this when you need a quick estimate of brand visibility in AI buyer prompts. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions the sibling tool check_agent_readiness as an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
- Changed
check_agent_readiness1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "properties": { + "blocked": { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "checks": { + "items": { + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "dataUseNotice": { + "type": "string" + }, + "disclaimer": { + "type": "string" + }, + "kind": { + "type": "string" + }, + "score": { + "type": "number" + }, + "url": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
check_ai_visibility5 fields changed- changed
Output schema / properties / competitors / descriptionPrevious value: -"Brands AI names instead"New value: +"Other brands named in the representative sample" - added
Output schema / properties / dataUseNoticeAdded value: +{ + "type": "string" +} - added
Output schema / properties / disclaimerAdded value: +{ + "type": "string" +} - removed
Output schema / properties / reportUrlRemoved value: -{ - "type": "string" -} - added
Output schema / properties / topFixesAdded value: +{ + "description": "Up to three practical public-site improvements", + "items": { + "properties": { + "title": { + "type": "string" + }, + "why": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" +}
2 tool updates
- First observed
check_agent_readiness - First observed
check_ai_visibility
Related MCP Connectors
Check if ChatGPT, Perplexity & Gemini mention or cite a brand. Share of voice + GEO/AEO tracking.
Track brand visibility across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini & Perplexity. Scores, competitors, trends.
Diagnose brand visibility in AI answers (ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overviews). Free + paid audits.
Query your brand's AI visibility across ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and Gemini.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceChecks whether ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini cite your brand for a given keyword, and who's winning the citation battle for it instead.27MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to scan brand visibility across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini & Perplexity, analyze website GEO readiness, compare competitors, and get actionable recommendations.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables querying how often a brand is recommended by AI search and chat surfaces, returning recommendation and inclusion rates for any given brand.-
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.