Skip to main content
Glama

Cataas

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing default model cost (free), the need for an API key for Anthropic, and the return structure (per-model and combined view). No contradictions.

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 front-load the purpose, then detail usage and returns. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or filler.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes return fields (score, confidence, signals, raw_response). It covers the main behaviors but could mention potential rate limits or failure modes for completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context: default model, optionality of models list, API key purpose, and disambiguation via context parameter. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and returns a visibility score (0-100) per model. It specifies the verb 'probe', the resource 'LLMs', and the output metric, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' which likely focus on competitor-specific scans.

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 notes the tool is useful for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, and competitive monitoring, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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

All Cataas 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 tools intentionally overlap: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, and ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research plus discover_tools/suggest_questions sit close together. The long descriptions clarify differences, but an agent still has to choose between near-equivalent entry points.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are readable snake_case, but there is no single consistent convention: verb-led names like list_tags and resolve_entity sit alongside noun-led names like random_cat, entity_profile, and polymarket_arbitrage. Domain prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_ help, but the mixed grammar makes the surface less predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far beyond what a cat-image server needs; only 3 tools relate to Cataas, while the rest form a sprawling Pipeworx data, prediction-market, memory, and subscription suite. The count is in the 'too many' range and most tools are outside the server's apparent stated domain.

Completeness3/5

The cat-image core covers random cats, tag-filtered cats, and tag listing, but omits other Cataas-style operations like fetching by cat ID or creating cat images with text/effects. The embedded Pipeworx side is broad, but it does not fill the gaps in the server's named cat API purpose.

Resources