Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Montana

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the description's value lies in disclosing the free default model, the direct-billing implication of passing a key, and the return structure. This adds economic and output context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 four-sentence description is tightly packed, starting with the core function, then model options, return format, and use cases. No filler; every sentence adds distinct information.

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?

The description covers the lack of an output schema by specifying per-model and combined response shapes, and outlines the tool's use cases. It could add more detail on 'signals' or error behavior, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond by clarifying the default model, the direct payment implication for Anthropic, and the fact that _apiKey is passed straight through. This is meaningful additional context, especially around the models parameter.

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'), defines the resource (one or more LLMs), the subject (business/brand/product/topic), and the output (visibility score 0-100). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on LLM awareness scoring rather than generic Q&A or research.

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 clear usage context ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains the default vs BYO-key model choice. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools.

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

All Arcgis Montana 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several clusters of similar tools exist: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (identical right now), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are easily confused, and the many polymarket_* tools overlap heavily. However, the extremely detailed descriptions usually clarify the specific intent, so an agent can often pick correctly.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun or a recognizable prefix pattern (ask_, polymarket_, pipeworx_). There are a few noun-phrase exceptions like layer_info and entity_profile, but the style is consistent enough that naming is not a major source of confusion.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for any server, and especially for one named 'Arcgis Montana' where only three tools (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) relate to GIS. Most of the surface is a general-purpose data/analytics API, making the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

Relative to the implied ArcGIS Montana purpose, the surface is severely incomplete: it only supports searching and querying datasets, with no create/update/delete or administrative capabilities. The Pipeworx functionality is broad, but the GIS side is a thin slice, leaving obvious gaps for geospatial workflows.

Resources