GEO Inspector README
The full upstream README, mirrored here for reference. Install config, tool schemas, adoption signals, and an original overview live on the GEO Inspector listing page.
geo-inspector-mcp
An MCP server that gives an AI assistant four tools for inspecting how a website presents itself to other AI systems: which AI crawlers it blocks, whether it publishes llms.txt, what schema markup it ships, and how its indexing directives are set.
Published on npm and listed in the official MCP Registry as io.github.Bigsupe55/geo-inspector-mcp. Works with Claude Code, Claude Desktop, or any MCP client.
Tool output above is verbatim from a live run against nytimes.com, docs.anthropic.com,
and stripe.com, captured by driving the built server over MCP stdio. The sitemap list is
collapsed to a count; nothing else is edited. Regenerate with npm run demo.
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.
Quickstart
That is the whole install. Point your MCP client at it:
Claude Code
Claude Desktop (claude_desktop_config.json)
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 |
|---|---|---|
check_robots_txt | 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?" |
fetch_llms_txt | Presence and spec-validity of /llms.txt and /llms-full.txt | "Has example.com adopted llms.txt?" |
detect_schema_markup | JSON-LD blocks, schema.org type inventory, AI-relevant types, sameAs disambiguation | "What structured data does this article have?" |
check_meta_directives | 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.
How it is built
The interesting part of an MCP server is not the tools, it is the contract around them.
Every tool returns two things. A readable summary for the model to reason over, and
structuredContent for anything downstream that needs to compute. That split is what
lets a separate scoring layer (ai-visibility-audit)
derive deterministic numbers from the same call the model is reading in prose. The model
never has to parse its own tool output back into data.
Parsers are pure functions. robots.txt, llms.txt, JSON-LD, and meta directives
each parse in isolation, with no I/O and fixture-based tests. A tool handler is a thin
shell: fetch, parse, format. This is what makes the behavior testable without a network,
and it is why the test suite runs with no fixtures to record and no site to hit.
All network access goes through one helper. A single fetch path with a size cap, a redirect limit, and a timeout. An MCP server runs inside someone else's agent loop with their API budget attached, so a tool that can hang or stream an unbounded response is a tool that can ruin a session. One choke point means those limits cannot be forgotten in a new tool.
robots.txt parsing follows RFC 9309 rather than a regex, because the whole value of
the tool is being right about whether a specific crawler is allowed. Longest-match wins,
user-agent groups merge, and Allow can override a broader Disallow.
Development
Parsers are pure functions with fixture-based tests; all HTTP goes through one capped, redirect-limited fetch helper.
Regenerating the demo GIF
Or the steps separately:
demo-data.json is committed, so rendering works offline and the GIF's claims stay
auditable: diff it against what the tools return today. The capture script mocks
nothing, so if a site changes its robots.txt, the demo changes with it. The only
authored text in the pipeline is the human question line; the sites to inspect are
configured at the top of scripts/capture-demo.mjs.
Related
ai-visibility-audit is the workflow layer on top of this one: it orchestrates these four tools into a scored, client-ready report. This repo is the raw tools.
License
MIT, see LICENSE.