Skip to main content
Glama

airports

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the default free model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b), the cost implication of using Anthropic ('you pay Anthropic directly'), and the exact return shape (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view). No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by operational specifics. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or filler, and the structure is easy to scan.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Despite having no output schema, the description states the return structure, default behavior, optional API key usage, and use cases. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it, though it could hint at error scenarios or interpretation of scores.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well-described (e.g., models definition includes the default and _apiKey requirement). The description repeats this information without adding new semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Probe') and resource ('one or more LLMs'), and clearly states the output ('score visibility 0-100 per model'). This distinguishes it from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on general brand/topic awareness across multiple models.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over similar ones.

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

All airports 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but the three 'ask_pipeworx' variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are highly similar and likely cause confusion. Additionally, the toolset mixes airport-specific tools with unrelated financial and research tools, creating ambiguity about when to use which.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use descriptive snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), others are single verbs (remember, forget, recall), and some include brand names (pipeworx_feedback). No clear pattern emerges across the 34 tools.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'airports'—only 3 tools directly relate to airports (search_airports, get_airport, calculate_distance). The majority are unrelated utilities (financial, prediction markets, memory), making the scope far too broad and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

The server severely lacks completeness for its stated airport domain: there are no tools for flights, airlines, runways, or real-time data. The other included domains (e.g., financial, prediction markets) are also incomplete, with e.g., only partial coverage of company data and no update/delete operations.

Resources