Skip to main content
Glama

disify

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the default model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b, free), API key requirements for Anthropic with direct billing implications, and the return structure. These details help the agent anticipate costs and setup without contradicting 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 three well-structured sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds operational details (default model, API key, returns), and concludes with use cases. Every sentence contributes new information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return values per-model and combined. It covers default behavior, optional API key, cost implications, and use cases. Minor gaps remain around error handling (e.g., invalid key) and rate limits, but for a simple read-only probe tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description repeats some schema info (e.g., default model, _apiKey requirement) and adds cost context ('you pay Anthropic directly'), but it does not add significant parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The return structure is helpful but relates to output, not parameters.

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 function: 'Probe one or more LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic and score visibility (0-100) per model.' This is a specific verb+resource combination (probe LLMs, score visibility) that distinguishes it from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on per-model scoring and combined views.

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 usage context: 'Useful for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but it clearly implies suitable scenarios. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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

All disify 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

Several tools have nearly identical or heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, and the six Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) all involve finding/analyzing prediction-market opportunities. deep_research and ask_pipeworx also overlap as general query routers, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence is another confusable pair.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and are descriptive, but verb placement is inconsistent: some are verb-first (check_domain, compare_entities, resolve_entity), others are verb-last or noun-like (ai_visibility_check, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, bet_research). There is no chaotic camelCase mix, but the pattern is not predictable enough to guess a tool's behavior from its name.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is far above the typical well-scoped range and the set spans multiple unrelated domains (data lookup, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, email/domain validation) that have no cohesive purpose under the 'disify' name. Most tools are not related to domain or email checking, making the count feel like a grab bag rather than a focused toolkit.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'disify', the core domain-validation surface is minimal (only check_domain and validate_email) and misses obvious operations like WHOIS lookup or breach/debounce checks. As a general data toolset it is broad but shallow in each area, with gaps such as entity_profile only supporting US public companies and no update/delete operations for most data resources.

Resources