Skip to main content
Glama

Dailymed

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: default model is free, Anthropic requires a BYO API key, and the tool returns per-model and combined scoring with detailed fields. 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?

Three concise sentences front-load the core functionality (probe and score 0-100), then add model and output details. No redundant phrases; every sentence adds value.

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 all necessary aspects: input parameters, return format (per-model fields plus combined view), and use cases. Despite lacking an output schema, it explicitly lists returned fields (score, confidence, signals, raw_response), making it complete for a tool of this 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds practical usage details like the default model name, the role of _apiKey for Anthropic, and an example for the entity parameter (e.g., 'Pipeworx'). This exceeds the baseline expectation.

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, specifying the default model and optional Anthropic integration. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on multi-model visibility scoring rather than single-model query or competitive 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?

Provides explicit use cases: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for similar scenarios, leaving some ambiguity with siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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

All Dailymed 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded; deep_research; bet_research and multiple polymarket tools). This makes it difficult for an agent to distinguish which tool to use.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case and follow a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern. However, some names are very long and descriptive (e.g., polymarket_kalshi_spread, scan_competitor_ai_presence), which is acceptable but slightly inconsistent in length.

Tool Count3/5

With 38 tools, the server is on the high side of reasonable. Many are meta-tools or query routers, which inflates the count. The scope is very broad, covering diverse domains, making the number somewhat justifiable but still feeling heavy.

Completeness3/5

For the Dailymed domain, tools cover label search, retrieval, history, and comparison. However, many other domains (e.g., finance, prediction markets) rely on a handful of routing tools (ask_pipeworx) rather than dedicated tools, leaving the coverage uneven and not fully self-contained.

Resources