local-audit-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to local-audit-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables 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.1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables 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.44 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables running comprehensive website audits from any MCP client, returning actionable plain-language reports covering SEO, accessibility, performance, security, and more.6308 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAn 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.6MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables 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 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceExposes website auditing, finding retrieval, and safe fix application as MCP tools so AI agents can diagnose and remediate SEO, accessibility, and technical web issues.6MIT
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
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.
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.
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.
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.