Skip to main content
Glama

Duffel

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds crucial details: cost implications (free Workers AI vs. BYO Anthropic), per-model return structure (score, confidence, signals, raw_response), and combined view. No contradictions with 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 sentences, each adding unique value. First sentence defines core function and scoring. Second explains model options and cost. Third lists use cases. No redundant or filler text.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states return fields (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response plus combined view). All 4 parameters are explained in schema and description. The tool's complexity is fully addressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining default model, API key passthrough behavior, and the disambiguation role of 'context'. This justifies a 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('probe') and resource ('LLMs') with clear outcome ('score visibility 0-100'). It explicitly lists use cases: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'ask_pipeworx' which are Q&A-based.

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 states when to use (visibility audits, brand checks) and provides context on model choice (free default vs. paid Anthropic). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools, though the sibling list implies distinct purposes.

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

All Duffel 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
Disambiguation3/5

The set is organized into clusters (Pipeworx querying, Polymarket analysis, entity research, subscriptions, memory), but several tools within a cluster have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer questions, and polymarket_edges, bet_research, and polymarket_arbitrage all surface trading opportunities. The very detailed descriptions help an agent choose correctly, but the boundaries are not crisp enough for a 4.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are lowercase snake_case and there are consistent prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_, which aids predictability. However, the verb/noun ordering is inconsistent across the set (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, entity_profile, duffel_flight_search, ai_visibility_check), and some names are noun-heavy while others are verb-first. It is readable but not a uniform convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools the surface feels heavy for a coherent server; the rubric treats 25+ as too many. Several tools are wrappers or variants of the same underlying capability (ask_pipeworx_beta, polymarket_edges vs bet_research, ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence), so the count overstates real functional breadth.

Completeness3/5

The research/data side is very complete: querying, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, profiles, monitoring, memory, and feedback are all covered. However, the Duffel flight tool only searches and never books, so if the server is meant to be a flight agent there is a notable dead end; the broader toolkit also lacks direct CRUD for most resources beyond subscriptions.

Resources