Skip to main content
Glama

Cms

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable context: it probes LLMs, returns per-model data including raw responses, and clarifies that Anthropic calls require a BYO key. No contradiction 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?

Two sentences: first defines action and output, second adds optional details. Front-loaded with key purpose, then efficient expansion. No wasted words.

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 and no output schema, description covers return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response + combined). It does not explicitly list all fields but provides enough context. Could be more detailed on output format.

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. Description adds extra meaning: explains default model, that _apiKey is passed through to Anthropic, and that context disambiguates entities. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scores visibility 0-100 per model. It specifies the default model and how to include additional ones. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_entities or deep_research by focusing on AI visibility auditing.

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 mentions use cases: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. It explains default model usage and BYO key for Anthropic. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives for comparing entities.

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

All Cms 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Some tools have clearly distinct purposes (remember/recall/forget, subscribe/unsubscribe), but the ask_pipeworx family overlaps heavily — ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical today, and ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research are variations on the same routing core. Polymarket tools and comparison/profile tools also have fuzzy boundaries, though detailed descriptions help agents choose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (search_datasets, get_dataset, validate_claim, resolve_entity). A few deviate with bare verbs (remember, forget, recall) or noun-like names (dataset_info, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), but the overall style is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is a heavy surface for one server, and the scope sprawls across CMS open data, general data research, prediction markets, memory storage, and subscription management. Many of these could be split into separate coherent servers, and several meta-routers (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions) overlap in purpose.

Completeness4/5

Within the broad data-research domain the set is fairly complete: search, retrieval, grounding, comparison, entity resolution, verification, subscriptions, and memory are all covered with no obvious dead ends. However, the server is named 'Cms' yet only three tools actually touch CMS datasets, leaving that narrow purpose under-covered relative to the rest.

Resources