Skip to main content
Glama

Clinicaltables

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 mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it makes LLM calls (network activity) and that Anthropic calls incur separate costs, which is valuable beyond annotations. It doesn't fully detail failure modes but is adequate.

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, each serving a purpose: purpose and output, key usage note, return format. No redundant information. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description covers the main outputs (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response, combined view). Given no output schema, it provides a reasonable summary. It could mention error handling for invalid API keys, but overall complete for its 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% with descriptions. The tool description adds context about defaults ('default model is Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b (free)') and usage of _apiKey ('BYO key — you pay Anthropic directly'), which enriches the parameter meaning 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 brand visibility and outputs a score 0-100 per model. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on visibility scoring rather than general Q&A or competitor scanning.

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 lists specific use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and explains default behavior and API key requirement. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives but provides enough context for when to use.

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

All Clinicaltables 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

Several tool groups (ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research, conditions/disease_names, polymarket_* family) have overlapping purposes, requiring careful reading of descriptions to differentiate. While many tools are conceptually distinct, the similarity within domains could lead to agent misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is mostly snake_case but patterns vary: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx), noun_noun (entity_profile), single verb (forget, recall), and some adjectives (recent_changes). No consistent structure across the set, though individual names are descriptive.

Tool Count2/5

With 40 tools, the server is overly large for typical coherence. The tool count exceeds the 15–25 range deemed borderline, making it hard for agents to navigate and select efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers medical coding (ICD, LOINC, UCUM, drugs, procedures), financial data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools. Missing but minor elements (e.g., CPT codes) do not significantly hinder common workflows.

Resources