Skip to main content
Glama
houtini-ai

GEO Analysis for AI SEO

by houtini-ai
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v3.0.3

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: analyze_text for pasted text content and analyze_url for published URLs. While their analysis components overlap significantly (both include AI slop detection, writing quality, E-E-A-T signals, and actionability), the input type distinction prevents confusion. The only minor ambiguity is that analyze_text mentions additional features like data points and originality not listed for analyze_url.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a perfect verb_noun pattern with consistent snake_case naming: analyze_text and analyze_url. The naming is completely predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention across the tool set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools for a server named 'GEO Analysis for AI SEO' that suggests geographical and SEO analysis capabilities, the tool count feels too thin. The server's name implies broader functionality (potentially geographical data analysis, keyword research, competitor analysis, etc.), but the tools only cover content analysis of text and URLs, leaving significant gaps in the apparent domain scope.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for the server's stated purpose of 'GEO Analysis for AI SEO'. While the two tools provide content quality analysis, there are obvious gaps: no geographical analysis tools (e.g., location-based SEO, regional keyword analysis), no SEO-specific tools (e.g., keyword research, backlink analysis, ranking tracking), and no AI SEO optimization beyond content assessment. This will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform comprehensive GEO or SEO tasks.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

  • This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'comprehensive content quality analysis' but doesn't describe what the analysis returns, potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'AI slop detection' entails), or side effects. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

    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 highly concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and key analysis components without unnecessary words. Every phrase ('AI search optimization', 'comprehensive content quality analysis', specific detection types) adds value, making it zero waste.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's complexity (analyzing URLs for multiple quality signals) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns, potential errors, or behavioral traits like rate limits or permissions. The agent is left guessing about the output format and operational constraints, which is inadequate for a tool with no structured output information.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'query' affects 'relevance scoring' in more detail or what 'output_format' choices imply beyond the schema's enum). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze a published URL for AI search optimization' with specific components like 'content quality analysis', 'AI slop detection', 'writing quality', 'E-E-A-T signals', and 'actionability'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'analyze_text' by specifying URL analysis rather than text analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool in the description text itself.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for URL analysis (versus text analysis for the sibling), there's no explicit mention of the sibling tool, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others. The agent must infer usage context from the purpose alone.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the analysis dimensions and output format options, it lacks critical behavioral details: no information about rate limits, authentication requirements, processing time, error conditions, or what constitutes 'comprehensive' analysis. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to provide sufficient behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

    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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and scope. The first sentence states the core function, and the second elaborates on analysis dimensions. No redundant or unnecessary information is included. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning the key parameters or output options earlier.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and analysis dimensions adequately but lacks important contextual information about behavioral characteristics (rate limits, auth needs, processing behavior) and doesn't describe the output format or structure. For a text analysis tool with no output schema, more detail about return values would be helpful.

    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 documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions 'pasted text content' which aligns with the 'content' parameter, and 'AI search optimization' context which relates to the 'query' parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't provide additional meaning or usage examples beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

    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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze pasted text content for AI search optimization' with specific analysis dimensions listed (AI slop detection, writing quality, E-E-A-T signals, etc.). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'analyze_url' by specifying 'pasted text content' rather than URL analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool's functionality.

    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 description implies usage context through 'pasted text content' and 'AI search optimization,' suggesting when this tool is appropriate. It mentions the sibling tool 'analyze_url' exists but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus that alternative. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are stated.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

geo-analyzer MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

geo-analyzer MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/houtini-ai/geo-analyzer'

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