Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to local-audit-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables auditing any public website, returning a scored plain-English report that flags issues costing customers, covering speed, phone experience, search visibility, contact options, writing quality, and modernity.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients to crawl and audit websites for SEO and technical health, checking on-page elements, links, robots.txt, sitemaps, and duplicate metadata, then returning scores and prioritized fixes.
      4
      4 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server that lets agents run free, keyless lead-leak audits on UK local service businesses — detecting form platforms and their outreach implications, checking whether phone numbers are tappable tel: links, comparing phone numbers across a site and free directories, screening website hygiene, and locating a business's own site. It also bundles these into a single full audit that returns a prioritised list of fixable issues alongside top local competitors.
      6
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients to audit client websites read-only: page and structured-data checks, crawler access, Core Web Vitals, site crawls, answerability scoring, Search Console reporting and answer-engine visibility. Every tool is scoped to a per-client domain allowlist, routed through an SSRF guard and rate limits, and returns fetched third-party text inside a fenced untrusted-data block.
      107 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Exposes website auditing, finding retrieval, and safe fix application as MCP tools so AI agents can diagnose and remediate SEO, accessibility, and technical web issues.
      6
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool has a fairly distinct role in the pipeline (raw fetch, signal extraction, scoring, FAQ extraction), and score_presence explicitly documents its input dependency on extract_signals. However, fetch_page and extract_signals both fetch page content, and FAQs are listed as a signal inside extract_signals while also being the sole purpose of extract_faqs, which creates moderate overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All four tools follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: fetch_page, extract_signals, score_presence, extract_faqs. No mixed conventions or vague standalone verbs.

    Tool Count4/5

    Four tools is slightly thin but fits a narrow, focused audit pipeline where each tool maps to a pipeline stage. Supporting optional parameters on score_presence (signals vs url, manual overrides) keep the count low without losing capability.

    Completeness3/5

    The core sequence fetch → extract → score is covered, but the surface has no way to persist or export an audit result, batch or compare multiple businesses, or re-fetch signals for a saved business. These are notable gaps for an audit workflow that otherwise looks self-contained.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues