Free tool
Is your page worth anything to an AI reader?
Widgetail measures what a page is worth to the humans who read it. This does the same question for AI: paste a URL, see whether it's structured so an AI answer engine can actually read and cite it. Free, instant, no signup.
What it checks
Six checks, in plain language.
Each one maps to something concrete an AI crawler or answer engine either can or can't do with your page.
Structured data
Does the page declare what it is via schema.org JSON-LD - Article, FAQPage, HowTo, or Product?
Heading & answer structure
One clear <h1>, no skipped heading levels, and a direct answer near the top rather than buried.
Author & citations
A named author, a visible publish or update date, and at least one link to an outside source.
Readable without JavaScript
Is the real content present in the raw HTML, or does it need a script to run first? Many AI crawlers never execute JavaScript at all.
AI crawler access
Does robots.txt allow known AI crawlers (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot and others), block them, or say nothing at all?
llms.txt (optional)
Reported for completeness. Adoption is low and Google has said it doesn't use this file - it barely moves the score.
Why we built this
The same question, asked of a different reader.
Widgetail's whole premise is that a pageview doesn't tell you what a page is worth - real engagement does. AI answer engines have the same blind spot in reverse: search rankings guess at quality from proxies like backlinks and keyword density, not from whether a page is actually structured to be understood. This tool applies that same instinct to a single page, for free, before you ever need the rest of what we're building.
Publishers who want this measured across a real site, alongside how much traffic is ad-blocked or AI-crawled, can apply to the design partner program.
Questions
Before you check a page.
What does this actually check?
Six things: whether the page has schema.org structured data, whether its headings and first paragraph give a direct answer near the top, whether it names an author and cites sources, whether its content is present in the raw HTML or depends on JavaScript to render, and whether known AI crawlers (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot and others) are allowed to read it via robots.txt. llms.txt presence is also reported, but weighted as close to nothing in the score - it's a low-adoption, unofficial convention, and Google has said it doesn't use it.
Is a high score a guarantee an AI will cite this page?
No. This checks structural readability, not whether any specific AI answer engine will choose to cite you - that also depends on the content itself, competition, and each engine's own selection logic, none of which we can see or promise.
Why is the JavaScript check just a heuristic?
A fully accurate answer would mean rendering the page in a real browser for every check, which is slow and expensive to offer for free. Instead we look at how much real text is in the raw HTML before any script runs - a good approximation, not a certainty, and we say so in the results.
What happens to the URL I check?
The check itself is stateless - we fetch the page, run the checks, and return the result without storing anything. If you ask for the emailed report, we send it and record just the email address and URL as a lead, the same way our waitlist and design-partner forms work.
Want this measured against your real traffic?
The design partner program measures blocked and AI-crawled traffic across your whole site, not just one page.