Skip to main content
Glama

Abuseipdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

AI Visibility Check

ai_visibility_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Probe one or more LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic and score visibility (0-100) per model. Default model is Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b (free); pass _apiKey to also probe Anthropic (BYO key — you pay Anthropic directly for those calls). Returns per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + a combined view. Useful for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entityYesThe thing to ask about. Brand/business name, product name, person, or topic. E.g. "Pipeworx", "OpenInvoice", "Acme Corp pricing".
modelsNoWhich models to probe. Supported: "workers-ai" (free default), "anthropic" (requires _apiKey). Omit for just workers-ai.
_apiKeyNoOptional Anthropic API key (sk-ant-...) — only needed if "anthropic" is in models. Passed straight through to api.anthropic.com.
contextNoOptional: a phrase locating the entity (e.g. "Boston restaurant", "B2B SaaS"). Helps disambiguate common names.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses important behavior: making external API calls to Anthropic, requiring a BYO key, and directly incurring Anthropic costs. It also details the return structure. This adds significant context beyond what annotations convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by configuration details and return/use cases. Every sentence contributes valuable information with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description provides the return structure ({score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view) and outlines use cases. It covers prerequisites (_apiKey for Anthropic) and default behavior, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the default model and cost implication for _apiKey, but these are also mentioned in the schema. It adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Probe'), identifies the resource ('one or more LLMs'), and states the outcome ('score visibility (0-100) per model'). It also mentions return format and use cases, clearly distinguishing the tool's function from siblings by focusing on generic LLM visibility scoring.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains model selection (default Workers AI, optional Anthropic via _apiKey). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Abuseipdb toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly distinct, but there are several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are near-duplicates today, the Polymarket tools (edges, arbitrage, fill_risk, bet_research) have partially overlapping discovery purposes, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap on single vs multi-entity checks. These overlaps create real misselection risk, though the rest of the set splits cleanly.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but conventions vary noticeably: verb_noun for actions (check_ip, report_ip, list_subscriptions), domain-prefixed nouns for the Polymarket cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage), and brand-prefixed meta tools (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback). Subfamilies are internally consistent, but the overall set mixes patterns.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is already past the heavy threshold, but the bigger issue is the server name: Abuseipdb should have a handful of IP-abuse tools, yet only 3 of 34 actually relate to AbuseIPDB. The remaining 31 tools form an unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket/memory suite, making the count wildly inappropriate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the declared AbuseIPDB domain, only check, report, and blacklist are covered; obvious gaps remain like removing/clearing a false report, bulk IP checks, or category metadata. The broader set is a grab bag of unrelated capabilities, so no single domain gets complete lifecycle coverage, and the nominal AbuseIPDB surface is thin and diluted.

Resources