Skip to main content
Glama
localseodata

Local SEO Data

Official

citation_audit

Read-only

Check NAP consistency across 20 major directories like Yelp, BBB, Facebook. Get a consistency score and per-directory details to identify listing issues.

Instructions

Check NAP (Name, Address, Phone) consistency across 20 major directories like Yelp, BBB, Facebook, and YellowPages. Returns consistency score and per-directory details. Costs 50 credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
business_nameYesBusiness name
addressYesFull business address
phoneYesBusiness phone number

Implementation Reference

  • The citation_audit tool handler definition. Calls /v1/audit/citation API with business_name, address, and phone. Wrapped with error handling. Returns formatted results using formatResult.
    server.tool(
      "citation_audit",
      "Check NAP (Name, Address, Phone) consistency across 20 major directories like Yelp, BBB, Facebook, and YellowPages. Returns consistency score and per-directory details. Costs 50 credits.",
      {
        business_name: z.string().describe("Business name"),
        address: z.string().describe("Full business address"),
        phone: z.string().describe("Business phone number"),
      },
      READ_ONLY,
      withErrorHandling(async ({ business_name, address, phone }) => {
        const result = await callApi(
          "/v1/audit/citation",
          { business_name, address, phone },
          getAuth(),
          120_000
        );
        return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: formatResult(result.data, result) }] };
      })
    );
  • Input schema for citation_audit tool: business_name (string), address (string), phone (string) — all using Zod validation with descriptions.
    {
      business_name: z.string().describe("Business name"),
      address: z.string().describe("Full business address"),
      phone: z.string().describe("Business phone number"),
    },
  • Tool registered via server.tool() with the name 'citation_audit' inside registerAuditTools function.
      server.tool(
        "citation_audit",
        "Check NAP (Name, Address, Phone) consistency across 20 major directories like Yelp, BBB, Facebook, and YellowPages. Returns consistency score and per-directory details. Costs 50 credits.",
        {
          business_name: z.string().describe("Business name"),
          address: z.string().describe("Full business address"),
          phone: z.string().describe("Business phone number"),
        },
        READ_ONLY,
        withErrorHandling(async ({ business_name, address, phone }) => {
          const result = await callApi(
            "/v1/audit/citation",
            { business_name, address, phone },
            getAuth(),
            120_000
          );
          return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: formatResult(result.data, result) }] };
        })
      );
    }
  • src/server.ts:38-38 (registration)
    Registration call in server.ts: registerAuditTools(server, getAuth) wires the audit tools (including citation_audit) into the MCP server.
    registerAuditTools(server, getAuth);
  • The formatResult helper used to format the response. Appends credit usage metadata to the JSON output.
    export function formatResult(
      data: unknown,
      meta: { credits_used: number; credits_remaining: number; cached: boolean }
    ): string {
      const metaLine = `[${meta.credits_used} credit${meta.credits_used !== 1 ? "s" : ""} used | ${meta.credits_remaining} remaining${meta.cached ? " | cached" : ""}]`;
      return `${metaLine}\n\n${JSON.stringify(data, null, 2)}`;
    }
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description agrees with (read operation). The description adds value by noting the tool costs 50 credits and returns a consistency score and per-directory details, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and scope in the first sentence and output and cost in the second. Every word adds value with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, directories checked, output, and cost. However, it could specify the output format more clearly, though the lack of output schema lowers the burden.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The description does not add extra parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 checks NAP consistency across 20 major directories, specifying examples like Yelp, BBB, Facebook, and YellowPages. It distinguishes itself from sibling audit tools like local_audit or reputation_audit by focusing specifically on NAP consistency.

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 the tool is for verifying NAP consistency but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like local_audit or when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not explicitly differentiated.

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/localseodata/mcp-server'

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