Skip to main content
Glama

Data Nj

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: default model is free, Anthropic probing requires BYO key, and it details the return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response). No contradictions.

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 efficient sentences: core purpose, model details with key caveat, and return structure + use cases. No fluff, well front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values adequately. All parameters are covered. Missing details like rate limits or model count limits, but overall sufficient for a 4-parameter tool with rich annotations.

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%, but the description adds valuable context: default model, how _apiKey works ('paid by you'), and the role of context for disambiguation. It supplements schema descriptions effectively.

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 business/brand knowledge and scoring visibility (0-100). It uses specific verbs ('probe', 'score') and resources ('LLMs', 'visibility'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on AI visibility across models, unlike generic query or entity_profile tools.

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') and explains when to provide an API key for Anthropic. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or name alternative siblings, leaving room for slight improvement.

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

All Data Nj 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, which all query Pipeworx data in different modes. However, their descriptions clearly differentiate them. Similarly, memory and subscription tools are separate. Overall, an agent can distinguish tools with moderate effort.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt. However, a few tools like 'datasets', 'metadata', and 'query' are single nouns, breaking the pattern. Overall, naming is consistent enough for an agent to predict behavior.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is above the typical range for an MCP server, but the server covers a wide domain (SEC, FRED, FDA, prediction markets, etc.) with specialized tools. The count is borderline heavy but justifiable given the scope. Some tools like memory and subscription management add to the count but serve necessary auxiliary functions.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is comprehensive for its intended domain of structured data querying and analysis. It covers data retrieval, entity resolution, comparison, news, subscriptions, and memory. Minor gaps include dependency scanning only for npm and lack of direct web search, but meta-tools like ask_pipeworx fill many needs. Overall, it supports common workflows well.

Resources