AI Visibility Checker

Check AI Visibility

check_ai_visibility

Read-only

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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

TableJSON 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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedSep 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / competitors / description

Previous value: -"Brands AI names instead"New value: +"Other brands named in the representative sample"

addedOutput schema / properties / dataUseNotice
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / disclaimer
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / reportUrl
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / topFixes

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Up to three practical public-site improvements",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "title": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "why": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedJun 9, 2026

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.

All AI Visibility Checker tools Inspect

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.

Resources

Need Help?