Skip to main content
Glama

Currents

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals cost implications (free vs BYO key), the return format (per-model score/confidence/signals/raw_response + combined view), and model selection behavior. No contradictions 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?

Two efficient sentences convey purpose, usage, cost, and output structure. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the tool's behavior, input parameters, cost model, and output structure comprehensively given no output schema. For a moderate-complexity tool with 4 params, this is 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 adequate descriptions. The description adds context: default model, why _apiKey is needed, how context disambiguates. This adds value 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 entity knowledge and scores visibility (0-100) per model. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on AI visibility audits rather than general Q&A or research.

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 explains when to provide _apiKey for Anthropic vs default free model, but doesn't 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 Currents 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

Several tool clusters are hard to tell apart: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers (beta currently behaves exactly like stable), and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all overlap around edge and arbitrage discovery. The descriptions are detailed and help, but an agent must read carefully to avoid misselecting a sibling tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case, but the verb/noun ordering is mixed: verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, list_categories, resolve_entity) coexist with noun-first names (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, recent_alerts) and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). Readable overall, but the pattern is not systematic.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and spans at least six loosely related domains (news, structured data research, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions), making the server feel like a multi-product grab bag. Meta-tools like discover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending add further navigation overhead.

Completeness4/5

Within each bundled domain the lifecycle is well covered: data lookup has routing, grounded mode, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, and claim validation; Polymarket has research, arbitrage, edge, fill-risk, and cross-venue spread tools; memory and subscriptions each have full CRUD-ish flows. Minor gaps like subscription updating or direct article-by-ID fetching are workarounds rather than dead ends.

Resources