Skip to main content
Glama

artic

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: the default model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b) is free, while probing Anthropic requires a BYO key and direct billing. It also outlines the return structure (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view), which is especially valuable given the absence of an output schema. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 concise sentences, with each earning its place: the first states the core function and scoring; the second covers models and cost; the third reveals the output structure and use cases. There is no fluff, and the most important action is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters) and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the models available, the cost implications, the return format, and use cases. It does not explain how to interpret the visibility score (e.g., what high vs. low means) or potential limitations of LLM knowledge, but these are minor in context of the strong overall coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds extra meaning by explaining that _apiKey is for Anthropic and that you pay Anthropic directly, which the schema does not mention. It also says 'Omit for just workers-ai', providing practical guidance beyond the formal parameter description.

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 the tool's purpose: probing LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scoring visibility (0-100). It uses a specific verb ('Probe') and resource ('one or more LLMs'), and the use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) help distinguish it from siblings. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast an alternative sibling, so it stops short of 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?

The description provides explicit use-case guidance: 'Useful for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It also clarifies when the Anthropic model is used (when _apiKey is passed) and that the default Workers AI model is free. It does not list when not to use the tool or contrast with specific siblings, which would earn a 5.

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

All artic 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters of tools heavily overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language questions over the same underlying sources, and six polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have blurry boundaries. The four art museum tools are entirely unrelated to the data-research tools, adding confusion to the set.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case and generally readable, but the verb-object pattern is not consistent: bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe) sit alongside verb-first names (get_artwork, validate_claim, resolve_entity) and noun-first compounds (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges, ai_visibility_check). The repeated prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_) do provide some structure.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the server is overstuffed. The core Pipeworx data and Polymarket analytics surface alone would justify roughly 20 tools, but memory management, subscription lifecycle, llms.txt generation, npm dependency scanning, claim validation, and Art Institute of Chicago lookups are unrelated additions that push the count well beyond a focused scope.

Completeness4/5

Each functional cluster is fairly complete on its own: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/recent_alerts/unsubscribe, data lookup has casual, grounded, deep, and validation modes, and prediction markets cover research, edges, arbitrage, fill risk, tracking, and cross-venue spreads. The issue is not missing capabilities but the lack of a single coherent domain.

Resources