Skip to main content
Glama

Congress

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. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining cost implications (free Workers AI, BYO key for Anthropic), the scoring range, and that keys are passed through to Anthropic. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides essential information: what it does, output structure, default/custom options, and use cases. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 behavior, parameters, output structure (though no formal output schema), and use cases. It lacks explicit mention of rate limits or error handling, but annotations already confirm idempotency and read-only nature. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's 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 description coverage is 100% (all parameters described in schema). The description adds context beyond the schema: it explains that the entity is the subject, that models array is optional and defaults to workers-ai, and that _apiKey is only needed for Anthropic. It provides examples and clarifies the default model.

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 entity visibility and returns a 0-100 score per model. It specifies the verb 'probe', the resource 'LLMs', and the output format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on multi-model probing with 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 explicitly lists use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It does not mention when not to use or contrast with specific siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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

All Congress 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools occupy the same functional space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_ipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions; disover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending all serve discovery; and five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research overlap heavily on prediction-market opportunity detection. The descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries are subtle enough that an agent can easily pick the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is uniformly lowercase snake_case and uses recognizable prefixes such as ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, pipeworx_, and get_, which makes the naming fairly predictable. It is not a strict verb_noun convention — some names are noun phrases like entity_profile or ai_visility_check — but the overall style is consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the surface is far heavier than the 'Congress' name suggests: only five tools are actually about congressional data, while the rest are general research, memory, subscription, and meta utilities. Many of these overlap, so the count feels bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness3/5

For Congress-specific work, the core needs are covered: search bills, get bill details, list members, and retrieve recent votes. However, deeper legislative operations like member voting records, committee actions, and amendments are missing, and the surrounding Pipeworx tools do nothing to close that gap. As a general data-research platform it is broad, but its actual 'Congress' identity feels incompletely realized.

Resources