Skip to main content
Glama

Data Bloomington

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing return format (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response + combined view), default model, and the BYO key mechanism for Anthropic, going 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?

The description is a single focused paragraph, front-loads the main action, and every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return type (per-model fields plus combined view). All parameters are covered in schema and description. The tool's purpose and usage are completely described for effective invocation.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions. The description adds practical semantics: explains that _apiKey is only required when 'anthropic' is in models, states default model, and clarifies that context helps disambiguate. This adds meaning 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 knowledge about a business or topic and scores visibility per model, with specific verb 'probe' and resource 'LLMs'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on scoring visibility and supporting multiple models.

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 context for use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains when to provide an API key. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives among siblings.

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

All Data Bloomington 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

Multiple tool clusters overlap heavily — ask_pipeworx_beta is functionally identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and the six Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, etc.) have blurry boundaries. The entity-research family (entity_profar, compare_entities, recent_changes) is also easy to misselect despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but conventions are mixed: verb_noun (resolve_entaty, validate_claim), bare verbs (remember, recall, query), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes), and brand-prefixed nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). Family prefixes and verbs help readability, but the overall pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold and spans loosely related domains — Bloomington open data, Pipeworx research, prediction markets, AI marketing, memory, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. The scope feels heavy and unfocused relative to the 'Data Bloomington' server name.

Completeness4/5

The core research lifecycle is well covered: routing (ask_pipeworx), grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles/comparisons/changes, claim validation, entity resolution, subscriptions, and memory all exist. Minor gaps remain — no standalone tool for fetching a pipeworx:// citation URI and no API-key management — but agents can work around them.

Resources