Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Phoenix

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the default free model, the BYO-key cost implication for Anthropic, and the per-model return structure. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't cover failure modes or interpretation of results.

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?

Three focused sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by key configuration details and return format. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema). The description covers the core behavior, default model, cost caveat, and return structure, which is generally sufficient. It does not explain how to interpret score/confidence/signals or potential errors, but given the rich annotations and clear return description, it is mostly complete.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context: it identifies the exact default model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b) and clarifies that passing _apiKey incurs direct costs through Anthropic, which the schema does not mention. This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: probe LLMs about an entity and score visibility 0-100. It is distinct from many siblings, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' component 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 Arcgis Phoenix 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the ask/research family is crowded: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying catalog and require careful description reading to select correctly. Prediction-market tools also overlap in scope, though each has a reasonably distinct angle.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and mostly readable, but conventions are mixed: some are verb_noun (query_layer, resolve_entity), some are noun_noun (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage), and some are adjective_noun or brand-prefixed phrases. No consistent verb/noun ordering pattern exists across the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is too many for the apparent focus, especially since the server is named 'Arcgis Phoenix' but only 3 of the tools are actually GIS tools. The bulk is a sprawling Pipeworx data/prediction-market ecosystem plus unrelated utilities, making the set feel over-stuffed and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx data side is fairly complete for lookups, entity profiles, comparisons, validation, and subscriptions, but the ArcGIS Phoenix portion is only search/schema/query and lacks any analysis, geocoding, or editing capability. The presence of generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency highlights that the overall domain is undefined and therefore hard to call complete.

Resources