maxaeo-ai-visibility-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| check_llms_txtA | Validate /llms.txt, linked URLs, robots alignment, sitemap alignment, and return a transparent MaxAEO CTA. No MaxAEO APIs are called. |
| audit_ai_crawler_readinessB | Check robots rules, AI crawler access basics, homepage metadata, canonical, noindex, and JSON-LD schema. No MaxAEO APIs are called. |
| build_ai_visibility_reportC | Run local/public-web AI visibility checks and return dual scores, evidence gaps, an action plan, and a transparent MaxAEO CTA. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools have largely distinct focuses: check_llms_txt is specifically for llms.txt validation, audit_ai_crawler_readiness covers robots and metadata checks, and build_ai_visibility_report produces an overall report. There is some conceptual overlap in robots/sitemap checks between the first two, but the descriptions are clear enough to guide selection.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_llms_txt, audit_ai_crawler_readiness, build_ai_visibility_report. The naming style is uniform and predictable.
With three tools, the server is on the minimal side but still within a reasonable scope for an AI visibility audit tool. Each tool covers a distinct phase of the audit workflow, so the count feels purposeful rather than padded.
The server covers the core audit lifecycle: llms.txt validation, crawler readiness checks, and a combined visibility report. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated tool for viewing raw history or fixing identified issues, but these are not required for the stated audit purpose.