Skip to main content
Glama

Cdc

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate safe, idempotent read operations. The description adds behavioral context: default model (free) and optional Anthropic probe with BYO key (cost implication), plus output structure. 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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph. The first sentence states the core purpose and output; the second covers model options; the third describes returns; the fourth lists use cases. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy.

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 details the return structure (per-model fields + combined view) and scoring range. It covers all 4 parameters, gives usage context, and addresses the open-world nature of the tool. No gaps remain for the agent to infer.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining default behavior for 'models', when '_apiKey' is needed, and providing examples for 'entity' and 'context'. This goes well 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 uses a specific verb ('probe') and clearly identifies the resource ('LLMs') and output ('score visibility 0-100 per model'). It lists concrete use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) which implicitly distinguish it from the diverse sibling tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and provides context on default vs. paid models. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

All Cdc 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research serve similar querying purposes, and there is overlap among prediction market tools (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). However, descriptions help differentiate them, so agents can usually select the correct one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case with verbs (ask_, resolve_, validate_), but there are noun-style exceptions (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending) and mixed naming among Polymarket tools. The pattern is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the server feels bloated, especially given the name 'Cdc' implies a focus on CDC data, yet many tools cover unrelated domains like prediction markets and company profiles. Several tools could be consolidated or removed to align with a narrower scope.

Completeness3/5

The CDC domain is thinly covered with only search and get for datasets, lacking upload or advanced filtering. Company financials are limited to basic fundamentals from 10-Ks. Prediction markets are well-covered with arbitrage, edges, and fill risk. The server has notable gaps in its core domain.

Resources