I agree structured data and clearly defined schemas are good practice. That’s not controversial. Web standards that make machine interaction easier will likely become more important over time.Just yesterday, Google Chrome released an early preview of WebMCP, which is a proposed web standard that would allow a website to expose structured tools directly to in-browser agents. So instead of an agent having to screen scrape and guess its way through a UI, it can call real functions with defined schemas.
Making your site MCP-compatible for AI agents is a little different than just wanting to show up in AI search results, but having structured data and clearly defined actions on your site certainly can’t hurt.
Where I take issue is with the leap from “good practice” to “primary AI growth driver” and claims that 380 dealerships saw substantial AI traffic spikes after migration.
Structured data:
- Is not a direct ranking factor.
- Does not trigger indexing.
- Does not guarantee AI Overview inclusion.
- Does not override authority or competitive positioning.
If 380 dealerships saw substantial growth after migration, the obvious variables would be:
- Improved technical SEO
- Better crawl efficiency
- Faster site speed
- Cleaner architecture
- Stronger internal linking
- Inventory freshness handling
Attributing that lift specifically to schema or “AI readiness” requires isolating schema as the variable, which would require controlled before/after testing and a defined AI visibility metric.
What tool is being used to measure “AI visibility” across 380 accounts? AI Overview citations? Referral logs from AI agents? Impression deltas? Something else?
If schema alone caused large traffic spikes, we would expect to see low-authority but perfectly tagged sites outperforming strong brands without it. That’s not what’s happening in real-world SERPs or AI Overviews.
Structured data is smart.
Overstating its impact is not.