Skip to main content
Glama

Data Montreal

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds context: the default model is free, Anthropic probes cost via BYO key, and returns per-model details. No contradiction with annotations. Some behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, concurrency) are missing, but the description is sufficient given the 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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds details on default model, API key usage, and return structure. No fluff, front-loaded, and highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers inputs, output format (per-model fields plus combined view), and use cases. It does not need to explain return values further since it specifies {score, confidence, signals, raw_response}.

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?

All 4 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds meaning: it clarifies the default model for 'models', explains that '_apiKey' is only needed for Anthropic, and notes that 'context' helps disambiguate. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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: probing LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scoring visibility (0-100). It specifies the verb 'probe', the resource 'LLMs', and the output 'score', effectively distinguishing from siblings like compare_entities or entity_profile.

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 explicitly mentions use cases: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. It also explains the default model and when to provide an API key. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool or direct comparisons to siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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

All Data Montreal 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, and the several polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) have overlapping prediction-market territory. Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlaps could still cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., compare_entities, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt). A few tools deviate with noun/adjective prefixes (montreal_datasets, montreal_recent, pipeworx_feedback, recent_alerts) or single verbs (remember, recall, forget), but the overall style is consistent and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy. While each tool has a distinct role, the sheer number—spanning data access, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools—makes the surface harder for agents to navigate compared to a more focused server.

Completeness4/5

For its broad data-gateway purpose, the server covers a wide range: lookups, research, entity resolution, claim validation, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. The Montreal-specific subset (datasets, query, recent) is adequate for the apparent scope, with only minor gaps like no subscription-update tool.

Resources