Local SEO Data

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

citation_audit

Read-only

Check NAP consistency across business directories and get a 0–100 consistency score with per-directory match details to spot conflicting or unverifiable listing data.

Instructions

Use when checking NAP (Name, Address, Phone) consistency across business directories (Yelp, BBB, Facebook, YellowPages, Angi, Houzz, Trustpilot and more). Returns consistency_score (0-100 partial-credit average over found listings; null when no listings found) and per-directory match details. Match fields are true (verified), false (conflicting value found), or null (listing found but the field isn't visible in search data, so it can't be verified). Every directory selected is scanned whether or not a listing exists there, so directories_checked always equals what was requested -- a business listed on only a handful still returns a row per directory. Scans the top 20 directories by default (50 credits); directories takes a count up to 50 or an explicit list of directory names, and costs 2.5 credits each (all 50 = 125 credits). Expensive -- confirm with user first.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`phone`	Yes	Business phone number
`address`	Yes	Full business address
`directories`	No	How much to scan, at 2.5 credits per directory. A number takes the top N of 50 (default 20 = 50 credits; 50 = 125 credits), or pass exact directory names e.g. ["yelp", "bbb", "houzz"]
`business_name`	Yes	Business name

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`found`	No
`details`	Yes
`not_found`	Yes
`consistent`	Yes
`unverified`	No
`inconsistent`	Yes
`consistency_score`	Yes
`directories_checked`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0Oct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / directories

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "maximum": 50,
+      "minimum": 1,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "maxItems": 50,
+      "minItems": 1,
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "How much to scan, at 2.5 credits per directory. A number takes the top N of 50 (default 20 = 50 credits; 50 = 125 credits), or pass exact directory names e.g. [\"yelp\", \"bbb\", \"houzz\"]"
+}

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "consistency_score": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "consistent": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "details": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "address_match": {
+            "type": [
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "directory": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "expected_address": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "expected_phone": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name_match": {
+            "type": [
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "phone_match": {
+            "type": [
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "enum": [
+              "consistent",
+              "inconsistent",
+              "unverified",
+              "not_found"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "directory",
+          "status",
+          "name_match",
+          "address_match",
+          "phone_match"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "directories_checked": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "found": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "inconsistent": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "not_found": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "unverified": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "consistency_score",
+    "directories_checked",
+    "consistent",
+    "inconsistent",
+    "not_found",
+    "details"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With readOnly/openWorld annotations already covering the safety profile, the description adds substantial extra context: per-directory credit cost (2.5, 50 credits for the default 20, 125 for all 50), the fact that every selected directory is scanned whether or not a listing exists, and the exact meaning of null vs false match values. This goes well 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the use case, then return semantics, then cost. Dense but every sentence carries actionable content; the only mild redundancy is restating return-value semantics that the output schema already covers.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, yet the description still resolves the key ambiguities an agent would hit: what consistency_score means, how nulls differ from falses, and why directories_checked always matches the request. Cost and confirmation requirements are also covered, so nothing material is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning the schema does not: the credit math tied to `directories`, that a count takes the top N of 50, the default of 20, and the total cost ceiling. It doesn't add format hints for business_name/address/phone, which limits it to a 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: checking NAP (Name, Address, Phone) consistency across named business directories (Yelp, BBB, Facebook, etc.). This clearly separates it from siblings like business_listings, local_audit, or profile_health, which do not audit citation consistency.

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?

Begins with an explicit 'Use when checking NAP consistency...' trigger and adds a strong gating condition: 'Expensive -- confirm with user first.' It does not name an alternative sibling tool or state when NOT to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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