Skip to main content
Glama

Coordinates

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds context on model selection, API key handling (BYO key, direct payment), and return structure. No contradictions. The description enhances transparency beyond 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?

Description is compact (4 sentences) with front-loaded main purpose. Each sentence adds essential information: action, model options, return format, use cases. 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?

For a tool with no output schema, description adequately covers return values (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view). It also explains the default model and optional Anthropic integration. Missing details like pagination or error handling, but overall sufficient for a probing tool with safe annotations.

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%, so parameters are already documented. Description adds value by explaining default model behavior, how _apiKey is used (passed straight through), and how context helps disambiguate. This provides semantic 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?

Description clearly states the tool probes LLMs and scores visibility for entities. It specifies verb ('probe'), resource ('LLMs'), and outcome ('score visibility 0-100'). The output format is described, distinguishing it from sibling tools like deep_research 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?

Description provides explicit use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and explains when to use the optional Anthropic model. However, it does not mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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

All Coordinates 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical; bet_research and polymarket_edges both analyze Polymarket markets). Descriptions are detailed but the sheer number of similar tools creates ambiguity for agents.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, create_subscription), but a few use noun_verb (bet_research) or are standalone nouns (centroid, midpoint). Overall, the pattern is fairly consistent despite minor deviations.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is on the high side for an MCP server. The scope is broad (data access, prediction markets, geospatial, memory, subscriptions), so each tool earns its place, but the number is borderline for coherence.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities: data querying, entity profiles, comparisons, prediction market analysis, geospatial, memory, subscriptions, etc. Minor gaps exist (no batch operations or data export), but the core workflows are well-supported.

Resources