Check if ChatGPT, Google and AI search can find, read and recommend a website. Free, no key.
Scored across 1 tool
There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of selecting the wrong one. Its purpose (AI visibility check for a website) is clearly stated.
The single tool uses a clear verb_noun snake_case convention (check_website). There is no mixing of conventions to penalize.
One tool is thin for a server, though it matches the narrow, single-purpose scope of an AI visibility checker. Users get no options for rechecks, history, or comparison without leaving the server.
The tool covers the core lifecycle of a visibility check: fetch, score, issues, and links to full results plus a shareable card. Minor gaps exist around historical tracking, re-checking, or comparing sites, but the primary workflow is complete.
Check if ChatGPT, Google, Claude, Perplexity and Grok can find, read and recommend a website. Fetches the page like an AI crawler (raw HTML) and returns a 0-100 score and grade, SEO/AEO/GEO category scores, the top issues to fix, and links to the full results and a shareable score card. Takes about 10 seconds. Free, no key; results are private.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Website or page to check, e.g. example.com or https://example.com/page |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | |
| grade | Yes | |
| score | Yes | Overall AI visibility score, 0-100 |
| final_url | No | |
| share_url | No | Shareable score card (domain and scores only; nothing stored) |
| categories | Yes | |
| checked_at | No | |
| top_issues | Yes | |
| http_status | No | |
| points_lost | No | |
| results_url | Yes | Full free results on clickthislink.xyz, with copy-paste fixes |
| issues_total | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description adds important behavior: it fetches the page like an AI crawler using raw HTML, takes about 10 seconds, requires no key, is free, and returns private results. These details materially help an agent understand runtime behavior and constraints.
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 front-loaded with the core action and return values, then adds only useful runtime and privacy context. It is dense but not bloated, and every sentence contributes information.
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?
Given the rich annotations, complete parameter schema, and presence of an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the purpose, behavior, expected runtime, and output nature without needing to duplicate the output schema in 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single url parameter is already well documented with examples in the schema. The description reinforces that the input is a website or page but does not add syntax or validation details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action and target: checking whether named AI systems can find, read, and recommend a website. It also names the concrete outputs (score, grade, category scores, issues, links), so the tool's purpose is unambiguous even without sibling tools.
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 makes clear when this tool is useful: assessing a website or page for AI visibility across ChatGPT, Google, Claude, Perplexity, and Grok. It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, but there are no sibling tools to distinguish from.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
check_websiteFree, no sign-in: checks a website's readiness for AI search and lists what it found.
Checks whether a website is readable and citable by AI systems (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, etc.)
Check whether AI assistants can reach, read and cite a public website. No account for 4 of 5 tools.
Check whether ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity recommend a business, and get fixes for its website.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
