Skip to main content
Glama

Crystallography

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that Anthropic calls require a BYO API key with direct billing, and explains the return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response). 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence adds essential information: purpose, model options, output, and use cases. No fluff.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response + combined view). All four parameters are documented. The use cases are clear, though the exact JSON structure is not detailed—still sufficient for an agent.

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%. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the default model, the effect of _apiKey (pass-through), and the context parameter for disambiguation. It also clarifies output structure, which is not in 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's purpose: probing LLMs for AI visibility of an entity and scoring it 0-100. It specifies the verb (probe), resource (LLMs), and output (score), distinguishing it from siblings like ask_pipeworx (general Q&A) and scan_competitor_ai_presence (broader scanning).

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 explains when to use: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. It also differentiates the free default model from the paid Anthropic option, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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

All Crystallography 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are three overlapping ask_pipeworx variants (stable, beta, grounded) plus a dense cluster of six polymarket trading/arbitrage tools, making misselection likely. Several other tools also blur together around research aggregation and entity lookup (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim).

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names are lowercase and snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (get_structure, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and a few are bare verbs (remember, forget, recall). The ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded suffix pattern is readable but not mirrored across the rest of the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is above the 25+ threshold for a server whose stated purpose is Crystallography, and only 3 of those tools actually serve that domain. The rest belong to Pipeworx data lookup, Polymarket betting, memory, research, subscriptions, and unrelated utilities, so the count feels excessive and the scope is unclear.

Completeness3/5

As a broad data-research toolset, there is decent lifecycle coverage: lookup, research, grounded verification, entity resolution, comparison, subscriptions, feedback, and memory all exist. However, for a server named Crystallography the domain surface is thin (search/get/get CIF only), and there is no general web-search fallback for topics not in the structured catalog.

Resources