Skip to main content
Glama
AutomateLab-tech

automatelab-ai-seo

Official

Score AI citation worthiness

score_citation_worthiness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate how citable your content is for AI engines like ChatGPT and Perplexity. Analyzes BLUF openings, FAQ patterns, and answer-shape fit to optimize for AI citations.

Instructions

Score how citable a page or text block is for AI engines (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews). Evaluates BLUF (bottom-line-up-front) opening, FAQ patterns, statistic density, entity clarity, and answer-shape fit for the optional target_query.

Also returns extractability_score plus per-section chunk_analysis: how cleanly an LLM can lift a self-contained answer from each heading-delimited section (length band, lead-sentence directness, anaphora, concrete anchors). This is the GEO mechanic - it pinpoints the exact sections to tighten, with most_extractable / least_extractable called out.

Read-only when given url (one HTTP GET). Zero network when given text. No writes.

Deterministic, rule-based; no LLM calls. Returns reproducible scores.

When to use: pre-publish content QA, or to triage which existing pages are worth optimizing for AI citation first. Distinct from score_ai_overview_eligibility which scores Google-AI-Overview ranking probability for a URL; this scores the inherent citability of a text passage regardless of host.

Either url or text must be provided.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoPublic URL to fetch and score. Either this OR `text` is required.
textNoRaw text/markdown/HTML to score directly without fetching. Either this OR `url` is required.
target_queryNoOptional target search query the content is supposed to answer (e.g. `how to fix CORS errors in Next.js`). When provided, scoring weights answer-shape fit and query-term coverage. Omit if you want a query-agnostic citability score.
respect_robotsNoIf true (default), respect robots.txt when fetching `url`. Ignored when `text` is used.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
sourceYes
signalsYesPer-signal subscores (bluf, faq, stats, entities, etc.).
suggestionsYes
target_queryYes
engine_scoresYes
overall_scoreYes
chunk_analysisNoPer-section extractability: how cleanly an LLM can lift a standalone answer from each chunk.
most_extractableNo
least_extractableNo
extractability_scoreNoLength-weighted mean of per-section extractability scores.
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies read-only behavior ('one HTTP GET' for url, 'zero network' for text), confirms no writes, and emphasizes determinism and reproducibility. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is fairly concise given the complexity of the tool. It is well-structured with an initial summary, then details on evaluation factors, behavioral notes, usage guidelines, and sibling distinction. Every sentence provides useful information, though it could be slightly tightened.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter semantics adequately. It does not address edge cases (e.g., handling of both url and text simultaneously, or fetch failures), but the presence of an output schema and annotations means not all details must be in the description. It provides sufficient context for correct tool selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of url and text, and by specifying that target_query influences scoring (answer-shape fit, query-term coverage) when provided. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool scores citation worthiness for AI engines, lists specific evaluation factors (BLUF, FAQ, etc.), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool score_ai_overview_eligibility by contrasting what each tool measures.

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?

The description provides explicit usage contexts: 'pre-publish content QA' and 'triage which existing pages are worth optimizing for AI citation first.' It also notes that either url or text must be provided. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or provide direct alternatives beyond the one sibling mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AutomateLab-tech/ai-seo-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server