A
licenseA
qualityA
maintenanceEnables AI agents to check whether a public website is crawlable, understandable, and ready for AI search workflows through local-only audits of robots.txt, sitemaps, metadata, and llms.txt.
3
250
1
MIT
geo-inspector-mcp
by Bigsupe55
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@geo-inspector-mcpCheck AI crawler blocks on nytimes.com"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
geo-inspector-mcp
Inspect any website's AI-search readiness from Claude (or any MCP client): which AI crawlers it blocks, whether it publishes llms.txt, what schema markup it ships, and how its indexing directives are set.
Why this exists
AI assistants are becoming a primary way people find and cite content, and sites signal their intent to AI systems through a handful of plumbing files: robots.txt rules for AI crawlers, the emerging llms.txt standard, schema.org structured data, and meta directives. Checking those by hand means juggling curl, a robots.txt parser in your head, and view-source. This server turns all of it into questions you can just ask Claude.
Related MCP server: AI Readiness
Quickstart
npx -y geo-inspector-mcpThat is the whole install. Point your MCP client at it:
Claude Code
claude mcp add geo-inspector -- npx -y geo-inspector-mcpClaude Desktop (claude_desktop_config.json)
{
"mcpServers": {
"geo-inspector": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "geo-inspector-mcp"]
}
}
}Then ask things like: "Which AI crawlers does nytimes.com block?" or "Does stripe.com publish an llms.txt?"
Tools
Tool | What it checks | Example question |
| Which AI crawlers (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, Google-Extended, CCBot, and more) are allowed or blocked, per RFC 9309, plus sitemaps | "Can OpenAI train on example.com?" |
| Presence and spec-validity of /llms.txt and /llms-full.txt | "Has example.com adopted llms.txt?" |
| JSON-LD blocks, schema.org type inventory, AI-relevant types, sameAs disambiguation | "What structured data does this article have?" |
| Meta robots tags (including noai/noimageai and bot-specific tags) and X-Robots-Tag headers | "Is this page indexable?" |
Every tool returns a readable summary plus structured JSON (structuredContent) for programmatic use.
Development
npm install
npm test # vitest unit + integration tests
npm run build # bundle to dist/
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node dist/index.js # poke it interactivelyParsers are pure functions with fixture-based tests; all HTTP goes through one capped, redirect-limited fetch helper.
License
MIT
Available Tools
4 toolscheck_meta_directivesCheck indexing and AI meta directivesA
Report indexing directives from meta robots tags (including bot-specific and noai/noimageai tags) and X-Robots-Tag response headers for a page.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Website URL. Scheme is optional, example.com works. |
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool reports but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, error handling, or authentication requirements. It is adequate but lacks depth for a standalone description.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('report indexing directives') and includes specific details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main functionality. It could mention what happens on error or hint at output format, but overall it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'url' parameter, which already documents its type and format. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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's purpose: reporting indexing directives from meta robots tags and X-Robots-Tag headers. It specifically mentions bot-specific and noai/noimageai tags, distinguishing it from siblings like check_robots_txt (site-level), fetch_llms_txt, and detect_schema_markup.
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 usage for checking page-level meta directives but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclude scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_robots_txtCheck AI crawler access in robots.txtA
Fetch and parse a site's robots.txt per RFC 9309, then report which AI crawlers (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, Google-Extended, CCBot, and more) are allowed or blocked for a given path. Also lists sitemaps.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Website URL. Scheme is optional, example.com works. | |
| path | No | Path to evaluate access for. Defaults to / |
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it fetches and parses per RFC 9309 and reports allowed/blocked crawlers plus sitemaps, but does not mention error handling (e.g., missing robots.txt), rate limiting, caching behavior, or whether it respects crawl-delay directives.
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?
Two sentences, each serving distinct purpose: first describes the core action and scope, second adds the sitemap feature. No filler words, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple fetch-and-parse tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it reports which AI crawlers are allowed/blocked and lists sitemaps. It lacks details on output format (e.g., JSON vs text) but is otherwise adequate for the tool's complexity.
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%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it does not clarify URL format or path default behavior beyond what the schema states). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb (fetch, parse, report), the resource (site's robots.txt), and the specific scope (AI crawler access). It explicitly lists AI crawlers and notes sitemaps, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with LLMs.txt, schema markup, or meta directives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (fetch_llms_txt, detect_schema_markup, check_meta_directives). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
detect_schema_markupDetect JSON-LD schema markupA
Extract JSON-LD structured data from a page and inventory the schema.org types found. Flags the types that matter for AI discoverability (Organization, WebSite, Article, FAQPage, BreadcrumbList, Person) and sameAs entity disambiguation.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Website URL. Scheme is optional, example.com works. |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without any annotations, the description effectively communicates the tool's behavior: extracting JSON-LD, inventorying types, flagging important ones, and performing sameAs disambiguation. It is transparent about its functionality, though it doesn't mention edge cases or error handling.
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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence covers the core function, and the second adds important specifics about flagged types and disambiguation. No extraneous information.
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 no output schema, the description explains that the tool extracts JSON-LD and provides an inventory of types with flags. This covers the main output expectation. However, it could be more explicit about the return format or what happens when no JSON-LD is found. Still, it's sufficiently complete for a single-parameter tool without annotations.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'url' with a clear description. The tool description adds context that the URL points to a page containing JSON-LD, but this is inherent from the tool's purpose. No additional parameter semantics beyond the schema are needed.
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 extracts JSON-LD structural data and inventories schema.org types, specifically naming the relevant types for AI discoverability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_robots_txt or fetch_llms_txt which handle other SEO aspects.
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 used to inspect schema markup on a page but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or specific context is provided to guide tool selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fetch_llms_txtFetch and validate llms.txtA
Check whether a site publishes /llms.txt and /llms-full.txt, and validate llms.txt structure against the llmstxt.org spec (H1 title, summary blockquote, H2 link sections).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Website URL. Scheme is optional, example.com works. |
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description only states what it checks and validates. It does not disclose return format, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are important for a query tool without output schema.
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?
Single sentence with clear action and scope. No fluff, front-loaded.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. However, it could mention expected return structure or error cases for completeness.
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?
Only one parameter with full schema description coverage. The description does not add information beyond what the schema already states, meeting the baseline.
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 for the existence of /llms.txt and /llms-full.txt and validates structure against a spec, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_robots_txt.
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?
No guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
4 tool updates
v0.1.2- First observed
check_meta_directives - First observed
check_robots_txt - First observed
detect_schema_markup - First observed
fetch_llms_txt
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of website metadata for AI discoverability: robots.txt, llms.txt, schema markup, and meta directives. No functional overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern: check_robots_txt, fetch_llms_txt, detect_schema_markup, check_meta_directives, with consistent snake_case.
Tool Count5/5
4 tools is an ideal size for this focused domain—each tool addresses a necessary and distinct inspection task without redundancy or clutter.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the key AI-related metadata surfaces: robots.txt, llms.txt, schema.org markup, and meta robots directives. A minor gap is direct sitemap inspection, though sitemaps are referenced in robots.txt.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessSyncing
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Checks llms.txt, AI crawler access in robots.txt, and sitemap - with a 0-100 AI readiness score.
Check website AI-readiness: Schema.org, llms.txt, E-E-A-T, robots.txt. Works in Cursor & Claude.
Scan any website's AI readiness: AI search visibility and AI agent usability. Free, no auth.
Checks whether a website is readable and citable by AI systems (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, etc.)
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceCheck whether a website is visible to AI search engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Google AI Overviews). Returns a 0-100 readiness score, a grade, and a specific fix for each gap. Dependency-free, no API keys.27MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to scan any website for agent-readiness and generate the necessary artifacts (llms.txt, WebMCP scaffold, structured data) to make it agent-ready.18MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceAn MCP server that gives AI agents tools to inspect a website's visibility to AI answer engines, including crawler permissions, llms.txt, structured data, on-page signals, and a full 29-check AI-readiness audit.554MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/Bigsupe55/geo-inspector-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server