Skip to main content
Glama

Bioregistry

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds that default model is Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b (free) and Anthropic requires a BYO API key, plus it outlines the return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response) and combined view. No contradictions with 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?

Three sentences efficiently cover purpose, usage details, and return format. Front-loaded with key action and score range, no redundant 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?

Given 4 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains return structure and use cases. Could mention potential errors or rate limits, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description adds context beyond parameter descriptions: default model, that _apiKey is passed straight through, and that context helps disambiguate. This adds meaningful value for agent selection.

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?

Description clearly states tool probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scores visibility 0-100 per model. It specifies the default model and optional Anthropic integration, distinguishing it from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence which likely focus on competitive analysis rather than general visibility.

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?

Explicit use cases are given (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring). However, no explicit mention of when not to use or alternatives like scan_competitor_ai_presence, which could be relevant for competitive analysis specifically.

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

All Bioregistry 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

Severe overlap exists between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all of which route to the same 5,743-tool catalog with only subtle differences. The pair resolve (CURIE-to-URL) and resolve_entity (name-to-ID) share the same verb but mean completely different things in different domains, and the five polymarket tools have heavily overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency2/5

The set mixes multiple conventions: noun-only names (prefix, prefixes, search, resolve), verb_noun names (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, validate_claim), adjective_noun names (recent_alerts, recent_changes), and vendor-prefixed names (ask_pipeworx*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). Some names break the pattern entirely, like forget and remember, and the plural prefix/prefixes pair is inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy for any single server, but the bigger problem is that roughly 31 tools are Pipeworx platform utilities (asking, memory, subscriptions, feedback) while only 4 serve the stated 'Bioregistry' purpose. A server named Bioregistry carrying prediction-market arbitrage and AI-visibility tools is poorly scoped regardless of the absolute count.

Completeness2/5

The Bioregistry surface is thin: search, prefix, prefixes, and resolve cover lookup/pagination but no registry management, and the remaining tools belong to an entirely different, unrelated domain. The server's apparent purpose ('Bioregistry') is barely served, while the Pipeworx functionality, though broad, is buried under an incongruent server name, making the overall surface incomplete and incoherent.

Resources