Skip to main content
Glama

Data Issy

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context like cost implications (free Workers AI vs. BYO key for Anthropic) and the return structure (per-model score+confidence+signals+raw_response). This provides useful 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then detailed parameters and use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 lacking an output schema, the description fully explains return format (per-model + combined view). All parameters are described with purpose, and the tool's complexity (multi-model, optional key) is well captured. No gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: it specifies the default model, explains when _apiKey is needed, and describes how the context parameter aids disambiguation. This enriches the schema information for an agent.

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 brand/product/topic awareness and scores visibility, listing specific use cases like AI-marketing audits and competitive monitoring. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or deep_research which serve different purposes.

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 tells when to use the tool (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch checks, monitoring) and mentions default vs. paid model options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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

All Data Issy 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

The toolset is mostly organized by clear subdomains, but there are multiple overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer research questions and the beta version is currently identical to the stable router. Detailed descriptions reduce confusion, but an agent could still reasonably pick the wrong one for a given task. The entity, memory, and subscription tools are more clearly separated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lower_snake_case and readable, but the set mixes verb-led names (compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-led names (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending) and some odd pairings like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence. No chaotic camelCase or inconsistent separators, but the convention is not uniform enough for a strong score.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is past the 25+ threshold and the surface spans many unrelated domains: structured data lookup, prediction markets, AI visibility marketing, city open data, npm dependency checking, llms.txt generation, memory, and subscriptions. Each tool may be individually useful, but the collection feels like a platform dump rather than a tightly scoped server. A more focused server would split off prediction markets, AI visibility, and utility tools.

Completeness4/5

The main data-research workflow is well covered: discovery, routing, grounded answering, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, recent changes, claim validation, and search-within-results are all present. Prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscription lifecycles also have no major dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no write/update path for open data and no subscription option for AI-visibility monitoring, but these are not central to the apparent core purpose.

Resources