Skip to main content
Glama

Data Seattle

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description fully aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) and adds behavioral details: 'Returns per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + a combined view.' It also clarifies cost implications for Anthropic and that the default model is free. 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides key details (default model, optional key, return structure). Every sentence is necessary; no fluff or redundancy.

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 covers all necessary aspects: input (entity, models, apiKey, context), behavior (probing, scoring), and output (per-model fields + combined). The lack of output schema is compensated by the clear return structure in the description.

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%, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema. It explains the default model, the purpose of `_apiKey` (BYO key, direct billing), and the `context` parameter ('helps disambiguate common names'). This adds significant value for correct parameter usage.

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: 'Probe one or more LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic and score visibility (0-100) per model.' It specifies the verb (probe), resource (LLMs), and output (visibility score). It distinguishes itself from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on probing models rather than scanning competitor 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 provides clear context: '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).' It states use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for typical use.

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

All Data Seattle 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) can cause confusion due to overlapping functionality. Some tools like 'seattle_recent' are vague.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., validate_claim, resolve_entity). However, a few like 'seattle_recent' and 'pipeworx_trending' deviate slightly, and 'recent_alerts' mixes noun_verb.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a single server, covering data retrieval, prediction markets, Seattle data, memory, subscriptions, and utility. The broad scope feels bloated and overwhelming, making it hard for agents to find the right tool.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide array of domains with good depth in data retrieval and prediction markets. Minor gaps exist (e.g., Seattle tools limited to four datasets, no other city data), but overall it addresses most use cases its tools suggest.

Resources