Skip to main content
Glama

Data Toronto

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds behavioral details: the default model is Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b (free), Anthropic requires a BYO key, and it returns per-model scores 0-100 along with confidence and signals. This goes 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?

The description is two sentences long but packed with information: purpose, default behavior, optional key, return format, and use cases. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core action.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, LLM interaction) and lack of output schema, the description is complete. It explains parameters, return value structure (per-model fields + combined view), and use cases. An agent has sufficient information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the default model for 'models' (if omitted), that '_apiKey' is only needed when 'anthropic' is in models, and that 'context' disambiguates entities. It also describes the return structure, exceeding what the schema provides.

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 knowledge about a business/brand/product/topic and scores visibility (0-100) per model. It specifies the default model and optional Anthropic probing, distinguishing it from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on visibility scoring.

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 lists specific use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring'. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or compare to siblings, it provides clear context on when the tool is useful.

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

All Data Toronto 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple query entry points have overlapping boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, suggest_questions and discover_tools both serve discovery/onboarding, and validate_claim overlaps with ask_pipeworx_grounded. With 34 tools including five Polymarket edge/scanner tools, an agent can easily select the wrong meta-tool despite the detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, so there is no style chaos, but the pattern is inconsistent: verb-led names like ask_pipeworx and validate_claim mix with noun-led names like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and polymarket_arbitrage, plus bare memory verbs like remember/recall/forget. Related tools are also not aligned, such as ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is too many for a server branded 'Data Toronto', and many tools are only loosely related to the core data-access purpose: ask_pipeworx_beta, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, ai_visibility_check, and the memory trio feel like bolt-ons. Even granting Pipeworx's broad research scope, the set is over-stuffed rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The data-research surface is unusually comprehensive: search, deep research, entity resolution/profiling, comparison, claim validation, alerts/subscriptions, and Toronto open-data querying are all covered. The main gaps are Toronto-side metadata details like resource schemas/columns and a way to browse the full dataset catalogue without a keyword.

Resources