# Vendor facets — Webflow. A visual site builder: it serves an llms.txt the customer uploads # (never one it writes), and Webflow Cloud runs full-stack Next.js/Astro apps alongside a site, # where a provider could host server code of its own. The Webflow MCP server is a builder tool # for editing sites with agents — it gives a site's visitors' agents nothing and earns nothing. vendor: webflow name: Webflow website: https://webflow.com areas: - hosting registry_keys: - webflow rubric_schema_version: 0.22.0 generated: '2026-09-25' features_refreshed: '2026-09-25' basis: capability summary: >- Webflow reaches the Kin Score only through what a customer brings: an uploaded llms.txt it serves at the domain root, and server code the customer deploys on Webflow Cloud. Both earn what the customer's own work earns. Webflow's MCP server and AI SEO/AEO tools help teams build and tune the site and put nothing on it that an agent-readiness check reads. features: - id: llms-txt-upload name: llms.txt upload description: >- The customer uploads an llms.txt file in site SEO settings; Webflow serves it at the custom domain's root (not the staging domain) and keeps it out of search indexes. source: https://webflow.com/updates/introducing-llmstxt tier: paid - id: webflow-cloud name: Webflow Cloud description: >- Hosting for full-stack Next.js, Astro and Vite apps deployed from GitHub, mounted at a path of a Webflow site (my-site.webflow.io/my-app) or as an independent app. source: https://developers.webflow.com/webflow-cloud/intro tier: paid - id: webflow-mcp name: Webflow MCP server description: >- Webflow's MCP server for building and managing sites from Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor — elements, styles, CMS, analytics, Cloud deploys. source: https://developers.webflow.com/mcp/reference/overview tier: all - id: ai-seo-aeo name: AI SEO / AEO audits and fixes description: Webflow AI audits pages and generates alt text, meta titles and descriptions, and schema markup. source: https://webflow.com/updates/ai-seo-aeo tier: paid maps: - feature: llms-txt-upload check: llms_txt_published layer: composite provider_must: >- Write the file and upload it (UTF-8, under 100 KB), then publish to the custom domain. Webflow generates nothing — the credit is for the customer's writing. catalog_pass_rate: 0.351 facet: discoverability points: 4 baseline_pass_rate: 0.65 - feature: webflow-cloud check: mcp_server layer: agent_readiness grade: verified conditional: true condition: >- Only if the provider has an API or data to expose and writes and deploys an MCP server as a Webflow Cloud app — Webflow documents no MCP runtime or template; this is generic Next.js hosting under the site's path. note: >- A server the provider writes is its own and reaches `verified` when it answers the probe; the credit is not Webflow's. points: 12 baseline_pass_rate: 0.22 earns_nothing: - feature: webflow-mcp check: mcp_server why: It lets agents edit the site in Webflow; it is Webflow's server, not an MCP surface the site serves. - feature: ai-seo-aeo check: json_ld_present why: Generated schema.org page markup is not a published JSON-LD context artifact. out_of_reach: checks: - well_known_published - well_known_catalog - protected_resource_metadata - agentic_commerce - contract_present - agent_card note: >- We found no documented way to serve root .well-known documents from a Webflow site; Cloud apps mount under a site path, not the domain root. surface: discoverability: reachable: 4.0 total: 54 agent_readiness: reachable: 12.0 total: 139 hard_rule: >- A model, not a score. Adopting this vendor changes a provider's Kin Score only when the provider publishes the resulting artifacts on its own surface; nothing here writes a score, and no sponsorship or partnership can. method: searched source: - https://developers.webflow.com/mcp/reference/overview - https://developers.webflow.com/webflow-cloud/intro - https://webflow.com/updates/ai-seo-aeo - https://webflow.com/updates/introducing-llmstxt measured: cohort: method: vendors-catalog.json detections (CNAME / header / URL shape / markup), never a name match detected: 1 in_baseline: 0 control: basis: providers earning contract_present + documentation_present + api_reference_present, minus the cohort n: 5216 metric: >- cohort_pct / control_pct = mean share of the check's points earned (derived and platform credit weighted), x100 measured_on: '2026-09-25' status: 'not measurable: 0 detected customers clear the baseline (need 20)' simulation: simulated_on: '2026-09-25' rubric: 0.23.0 population: providers publishing a contract (contract_present earned), replayable exactly providers: 8977 providers_unreplayable: 987 providers_moved: 4456 conditional_rows: excluded (they depend on what the API already does) composite_lift: median: 0.0 p75: 0.7 p90: 0.8 max: 0.8 mean_among_movers: 0.7 agent_readiness_lift: median: 0.0 p75: 0.0 p90: 0.0 max: 0.0 mean_among_movers: 0.0 facet_lift_median_among_movers: discoverability: 7.4 composite_band_moves: thin -> developing: 164 emerging -> thin: 49 developing -> strong: 49 strong -> exemplar: 13 agent_readiness_band_moves: {} method: >- each provider's own kin/checks file, the vendor's maps at their stated credit, the scorer's composite formula; from -> to, nothing written