Skip to main content
Glama

Epa Emissions

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent hints. The description goes beyond by explaining the default model, the requirement to bring your own Anthropic key (including cost implications), and the return structure (per-model fields + combined view). 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the core action. The second sentence is somewhat long but packs necessary details without redundancy. Could be slightly more concise, but still efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately indicates the return structure (per-model objects + combined view). All 4 parameters are documented in the schema, and the description adds usage context. The description covers the tool's complexity well.

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 value by explaining the relationship between 'models' and '_apiKey' parameters (e.g., BYO key for Anthropic) and the purpose of the 'context' parameter for disambiguation, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 specific verbs ('probe', 'score') and clearly states the resource (LLMs) and output (visibility score 0-100). It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on general brand/product visibility rather than specific competitor scanning.

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 use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') which imply appropriate contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools for comparison, leaving some ambiguity.

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

All Epa Emissions 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set contains multiple groups with overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research for data queries, multiple Polymarket tools, and memory tools). However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them, so ambiguity is moderate but not severe.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools follow verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), others use domain-prefixed noun_verb (ghg_emissions_by_sector, polymarket_arbitrage). This mix, combined with a server name that doesn't match the tool domain, makes the naming pattern unclear.

Tool Count1/5

With 35 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given its name 'Epa Emissions' which suggests a narrow focus. Only 5 tools (ghg_*, tri_*) are related to emissions; the rest are unrelated, making the count inappropriate for the server's assumed purpose.

Completeness2/5

For an EPA/emissions server, the tool set is incomplete: it lacks other emissions data (e.g., air quality, water quality, enforcement). The inclusion of many unrelated tools (e.g., Polymarket, memory) does not compensate for missing core emissions coverage.

Resources