Skip to main content
Glama

Complex Portal

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond: default model is Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b (free), Anthropic requires an API key with direct payment to Anthropic, and it returns per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} plus 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, though the list of use cases could be shortened. Still well-structured for an agent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-model, optional key, scoring), the description covers purpose, default behavior, key requirements, return structure, and use cases. No output schema exists, but the return format is described adequately for invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds valuable context: entity examples (e.g., 'Pipeworx'), model options ('workers-ai', 'anthropic'), API key format (sk-ant-...), and context example ('Boston restaurant'). This enriches 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 of an entity and scores visibility (0-100) per model. The verb 'probe' and resource 'LLMs' are specific. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or deep_research, as it focuses on AI visibility scoring.

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 explicit use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It also explains when to provide an API key for Anthropic. While it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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

All Complex Portal 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

Multiple tools have overlapping boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research heavily overlap with them, and entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and validate_claim all circle the same company-data space. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also requires careful reading to distinguish. The descriptions help, but the set relies on them to disambiguate near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case style, whether verb_noun (search_complexes, validate_claim, unsubscribe), noun_verb (entity_profile, recent_changes), or brand-like (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_edges). There is no camelCase mixing or chaotic verb style. Minor inconsistency exists between imperative verbs (remember, forget, subscribe) and noun-style names, but the overall pattern is readable and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the 25-tool 'heavy' threshold, and many are meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, remember/recall/forget) that pad the surface. The server is named 'Complex Portal', yet only two tools serve that purpose—the rest belong to a broad data platform. The count feels inflated and misaligned with the server's stated identity.

Completeness3/5

For the broad Pipeworx data platform the surface is fairly complete: universal querying, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. For the Complex Portal domain named by the server, coverage is thin—just search and fetch-by-accession, with no browsing, species filtering, or cross-reference tools. The core workflow works, but the namesake domain is under-served relative to the rest of the set.

Resources