Skip to main content
Glama

Maryland Open Data

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds behavioral context: it is a 'probe' (non-destructive), requires a BYO key for Anthropic, and returns structured per-model results including score, confidence, signals, and raw_response.

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 concise (about 4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, covering usage, model options, and return structure without unnecessary detail.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return shape (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view). It also explains the optional parameters and default models. It is largely complete for a read-only probe tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal new parameter info. It reiterates the entity field with an example and notes the default model, but the schema descriptions already cover the fields adequately.

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: it probes LLMs to score visibility (0-100) for a given entity. The verb 'Probe' and resource 'LLMs' are specific, and the output (score per model) differentiates it from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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: for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. It also clarifies model usage (default free Workers AI, optional Anthropic with API key). However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or compare to alternatives 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 Maryland Open Data 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
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are generally distinct in purpose, but the server name 'Maryland Open Data' conflicts with the inclusion of many unrelated Pipeworx tools (e.g., prediction market tools). This creates ambiguity about the server's actual domain, making it hard for agents to know what to expect.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use snake_case (ai_visibility_check), others are plain (datasets, query), and some are descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded). No consistent verb_noun pattern emerges, leading to a chaotic feel.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high, and the majority are unrelated to Maryland Open Data, suggesting scope creep. The server tries to be a general-purpose data platform but is named after a specific dataset, making the count feel excessive and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The Maryland Open Data subset is minimal (3 tools: datasets, metadata, query), lacking update/delete/CRUD operations. The broader set includes many query and analysis tools, but the server's stated purpose is not fully covered.

Resources