A
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceEnables AI assistants and coding agents to audit, compare, and optimize websites for performance, SEO, AEO, GEO, and AI crawler accessibility directly from chat or development workflows.
MIT
WebAudits: Performance & GEO Diagnostics
by xcalibur73
Related Servers
Alternatives to WebAudits: Performance & GEO Diagnostics
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables auditing, comparing, and optimizing websites for AI readiness, performance, SEO, AEO, GEO, and AI crawler accessibility.4MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to monitor website performance by scanning sites, retrieving Core Web Vitals, detecting regressions, and receiving AI-powered optimization recommendations.1010 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceReal-machine, real-browser web perf measurement with ~99% iframe coverage. LLM-native + AI-agent-loop ready.2Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to crawl live websites, audit AEO readiness, generate Schema.org @graph JSON-LD, llms.txt, ai.txt, and robots.txt, inject structured data into HTML, validate optimizations, and retrieve framework-specific code snippets.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI coding assistants to validate HTML/CSS markup using W3C APIs, perform technical SEO audits, check broken links, and validate JSON-LD schemas directly in local workspaces.85,976 npm7MIT
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Scored across 3 tools
Disambiguation5/5
The three tools target entirely distinct diagnostic domains: DOM structure analysis, AI-crawler/GEO readiness, and LCP/TTFB performance. An agent can clearly map a request to exactly one tool with no overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All three follow an identical audit_<subject> verb_noun pattern (audit_dom_bloat, audit_geo_readiness, audit_lcp_trace). Consistent and predictable throughout.
Tool Count4/5
Three tools is on the lean side but each is well-scoped and earns its place within a focused diagnostics server. A slightly larger set (e.g. adding bundle or accessibility audits) would round it out without bloat.
Completeness4/5
Covers the core performance (DOM bloat, LCP/TTFB) and GEO readiness checks implied by the server name. Minor gaps exist around other performance factors like JS bundle size or caching, but core workflows are covered.