Skip to main content
Glama

Companies House

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: default model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b, free), API key usage (BYO key, direct payment to Anthropic), and return format (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view). 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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose statement, parameter behavior, and use cases. No redundant words, front-loaded with key action and output, highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format in detail. All aspects (purpose, parameters, usage context, limitations of API key) are covered. Given moderate complexity (4 params, 1 required), the description is sufficiently complete.

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 for all parameters. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining default model behavior for `models`, API key purpose for `_apiKey`, and disambiguation use for `context`. This extra context justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 states the resource ('LLMs') with a quantified output ('score visibility 0-100 per model'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on multi-model AI visibility scoring, which is distinct from other tools like ask_pipeworx or scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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 provides clear use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It also explains when to use additional parameters (e.g., `_apiKey` for Anthropic). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with specific siblings, missing a small opportunity for exclusion guidance.

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

All Companies House 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping jobs: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with stricter extraction, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve discovery. Company-facing tools also overlap (entity_profile vs recent_changes vs compare_entities), so an agent could easily route a query to the wrong tool despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly snake_case and grouped prefixes like get_*, ask_pipeworx*, and polymarket_* are readable. However, conventions are mixed across the set: some are verb_noun (search_companies), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, recent_changes), and the Companies House family sits awkwardly beside unrelated Pipeworx and prediction-market families.

Tool Count1/5

With 36 tools, the server is already heavy, but only five tools actually serve the named Companies House domain. The other 31 belong to Pipeworx querying, memory, subscriptions, and Polymarket trading, which is a severe mismatch between the server's stated purpose and its actual surface.

Completeness3/5

For UK company data, the core surface is mostly covered: search, company profile, filings, officers, and PSCs. However, charges and official document retrieval are missing even though get_company links to them, and the unrelated tools do nothing to complete the Companies House domain.

Resources