Skip to main content
Glama

Diffbot

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view) and the payment implication for Anthropic calls, going beyond what annotations provide.

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-loads the core purpose and default behavior, and includes essential details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately summarizes return fields. It covers parameters, default model, optional key, and use cases. However, it lacks details on how confidence is computed or what 'signals' entail, leaving minor gaps for a complete understanding.

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 description enriches understanding by explaining the default model, optional nature of 'models' array, and that '_apiKey' is only needed for Anthropic. It clarifies that 'context' helps disambiguate names, adding practical meaning beyond schema 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 verb (probe) and resource (LLMs for visibility scores), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'deep_research' or 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on per-model visibility scoring. It specifies the default model and optional Anthropic integration.

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?

Description provides explicit use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring), but does not mention when to avoid using it or directly compare with siblings. The guidance on model selection (default vs. BYO key) is helpful.

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

All Diffbot 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple research entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and company analysis tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, bet_research) overlap heavily; the five polymarket_* tools also require careful reading to distinguish. Descriptions are detailed, but an agent must parse long disambiguation text to avoid mis-selection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix verb-first (list_subscriptions, validate_claim, remember), noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), product-prefixed (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback), and brand-prefixed (diffbot_company, diffbot_extract). No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set; polymarket_* and pipeworx_* prefixes are internally consistent but the overall scheme is chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well beyond the 3-15 sweet spot and in the 'too many' range. Many tools are meta-variants (4 ask_pipeworx flavors, 5 polymarket tools, 2 AI-visibility tools) that could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription subdomains are each fairly complete at a meta level, with few dead ends. Gaps include no subscription update (delete + recreate required), no explicit memory update, and no direct way to execute an arbitrary discovered Pipeworx tool aside from routing through ask_pipeworx.

Resources