SeekinWeb — AI visibility
REMOTE · SEEKINWEB.COM
Does AI recommend a business? Who it names instead, which sources it uses, plus AI readability.
Available components
Last scanned (12 hours ago)
Scores higher than 85% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Marketing and SEO
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security69
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Nothing on it is marked destructive, but we can't show that an anonymous caller can only read: full credit needs the server to list at least one tool and every tool to be verifiably read-only. We use a best-effort check of tool names and descriptions to tell read-only tools from tools that change things, so some genuinely read-only tools may not get full credit. Names that start with a read verb (get, list, read, search and similar) and accurate readOnlyHint annotations help. Meet that to earn full credit, or require authorisation. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 405, which proves neither a plaintext path nor enforcement. View diagnostics → Unverified
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability77
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 543 tokens (~181/item across 3 items; 3 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 3 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 4 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities60
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2025-06-18; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
Checks we ran (12)
- TLS certificate
- Authorization
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Checks we could not complete (1)
These are gaps on our side, not findings about this hosted endpoint. We only credit what we can confirm, so a category made up entirely of them scores 0.
- HTTPS in Endpoint SecurityHTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 405, which proves neither a plaintext path nor enforcement.
Does not apply to this hosted endpoint (2)
- Supply Chain SecurityScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
- Provenance & TransparencyScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 1 Nov 26 +1
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 30 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 90 to 93. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 27 days of observed history at the previous scan, 28 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 28 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 83 to 87. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 25 days of observed history at the previous scan, 26 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 25 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 73 to 77. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 22 days of observed history at the previous scan, 23 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 23 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 67 to 70. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 20 days of observed history at the previous scan, 21 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 21 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 60 to 63. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 18 days of observed history at the previous scan, 19 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 19 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 53 to 57. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 16 days of observed history at the previous scan, 17 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 17 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 47 to 50. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 14 days of observed history at the previous scan, 15 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://seekinweb.com/api/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=seekinweb.com | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 15 Sept 2026 | 14 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | ad77b3d39598f50213f857dc7abbfbd1 |
| SANs: seekinweb.com, *.seekinweb.com | ||||||
| CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) | CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US | 13 Dec 2023 | 20 Feb 2029 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 7ff31977972c224a76155d13b6d685e3 |
| CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 15 Nov 2023 | 28 Jan 2028 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 7fe530bf331343bedd821610493d8a1b |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of seekinweb.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | DS published | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| seekinweb.com. | No DS | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=15552000; includeSubDomains |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| referrer-policy | strict-origin-when-cross-origin |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://seekinweb.com/api/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://seekinweb.com/api/mcp | Inconclusive | 405 |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
check_ai_recommendations Check AI recommendations ~162
Checks whether an AI assistant with live web search recommends a business when a customer asks for what it offers, without naming it. Returns how many answers named the business, which brands were named instead, which websites the assistant relied on (the sources to be present on), and what the assistant says about the business. Runs in the background on first use (about a minute): if it reports that the test is running, call it again shortly. Free, no account.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | string | – | Output language: "en" (default) or "es". |
| url | string | yes | Domain or URL of the site, e.g. "example.com" or "https://example.com". Use your own site or one you are authorized to review. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
generate_llms_txt Generate llms.txt ~129
Drafts an llms.txt file (llmstxt.org convention) for the root of a domain: a structured summary of the site for language models and agents, derived from the page's real content. Returns the file text. Note: llms.txt is an emerging convention with unproven impact.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | string | – | Output language: "en" (default) or "es". |
| url | string | yes | Domain or URL of the site, e.g. "example.com" or "https://example.com". Use your own site or one you are authorized to review. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
scan_website Scan AI readability ~143
Scans a website and returns its AI Visibility Score (0-100): whether AI crawlers and agents can find, read and cite it. Eight weighted signals (content readable without JavaScript, AI crawler access in robots.txt, structured data, semantic structure, metadata, performance, llms.txt, sitemap), each with a concrete fix when it fails. Free, no account.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | string | – | Output language: "en" (default) or "es". |
| url | string | yes | Domain or URL of the site, e.g. "example.com" or "https://example.com". Use your own site or one you are authorized to review. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the SeekinWeb — AI visibility MCP server?
SeekinWeb — AI visibility is a hosted endpoint at https://seekinweb.com/api/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · seekinweb.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-seekinweb-ai-visibility 'https://seekinweb.com/api/mcp'
What is the SeekinWeb — AI visibility MCP server?
SeekinWeb — AI visibility is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.seekinweb/ai-visibility. Does AI recommend a business? Who it names instead, which sources it uses, plus AI readability. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://seekinweb.com/api/mcp).
Is the SeekinWeb — AI visibility MCP server safe to use?
SeekinWeb — AI visibility scores 82 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the SeekinWeb — AI visibility MCP server expose?
SeekinWeb — AI visibility exposes 3 tools: check_ai_recommendations, scan_website, generate_llms_txt. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 434 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the SeekinWeb — AI visibility MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to SeekinWeb — AI visibility without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the SeekinWeb — AI visibility MCP server still maintained?
SeekinWeb — AI visibility is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What did VerifyMCP test on the SeekinWeb — AI visibility MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 12 checks on SeekinWeb — AI visibility, covering TLS certificate, Authorization, HSTS header, DNSSEC and 8 more. One item could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about SeekinWeb — AI visibility: HTTPS. Supply Chain Security and Provenance & Transparency do not apply to a hosted endpoint, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.