Skip to main content
Glama

Aviationstack

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it probes multiple LLMs, returns per-model and combined results, and notes that Anthropic calls are billed directly to the user. There is 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 description is a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main action and result, then adds parameter details and use cases. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly states the return format ('per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + a combined view'), covers all four parameters, and addresses cost and key handling. The tool's purpose is fully explained.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies 'entity' examples, lists supported models, explains the _apiKey passthrough, and notes context helps disambiguate. This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter usage.

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 clearly states the action ('probe one or more LLMs'), the target ('business/brand/product/topic'), and the outcome ('score visibility 0-100 per model'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, none of which perform LLM visibility checks.

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 use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains default vs. optional behavior (Workers AI free, Anthropic requires key). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for an agent given the sibling list lacks similar probes.

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

All Aviationstack 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and deep_research all routing queries, and the polymarket family (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk) covering similar ground. While descriptions are detailed, an agent could easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix bare nouns (airlines, airports, flights) with verb phrases (compare_entities, resolve_entity) and standalone verbs (remember, forget), with no consistent verb_noun pattern. Names like ask_pipeworx_beta and scan_competitor_ai_presence are internally inconsistent with the rest.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is far beyond the typical scope for a single server, and many are unrelated to the aviation theme, suggesting a lack of focus. The core aviation functionality only accounts for 6 of the tools.

Completeness3/5

The aviation tools (airlines, airports, flights, routes, cities, countries) cover basic lookups, but advanced operations like delay statistics or aircraft data are absent. The unrelated tools do not fill these gaps, and the overall surface feels shallow for a server claiming to be an Aviationstack.

Resources