Skip to main content
Glama

Epa Regulations

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 declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining that Anthropic calls require a BYO API key and incur direct costs, and it details the return structure. It does not contradict annotations.

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 well-structured, with a clear first sentence stating the core purpose, followed by details on models and return format. It is efficient but could be slightly shortened without losing clarity.

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 thoroughly explains the return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response plus combined view). It covers use cases, default behavior, and optional configurations. The sibling context is broad, but the tool is distinct enough.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for all 4 parameters. The description adds extra meaning: it explains the action of 'probing', the optionality of models, the need for _apiKey only with Anthropic, and the disambiguation role of context. This is beyond 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 one or more LLMs' for visibility scoring (0-100), which is a specific verb and resource. It succinctly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on per-model 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 outlines appropriate use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains default behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or how it differs from similar siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence', which could cause confusion.

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

All Epa Regulations 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

The server includes many overlapping tools (e.g., multiple ask_pipeworx variants, epa_regulation vs. epa_search vs. discover_tools). More critically, the tool set covers vastly different domains (Polymarket bets, npm packages, AI visibility, memory storage) alongside EPA regulations, making it hard for an agent to distinguish purposes.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use a mix of styles: underscore (epa_regulation, ask_pipeworx), camelCase (deep_research, suggest_questions), and verb phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent pattern is followed across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a server named 'Epa Regulations'. The vast majority are unrelated to EPA regulations (e.g., Polymarket, npm scanning, memory functions), making the scope mismatched. A focused server should have fewer, domain-specific tools.

Completeness1/5

For a server claiming to be about EPA regulations, only two tools (epa_regulation, epa_search) are directly relevant. The rest are from unrelated domains, leaving severe gaps in expected functionality like rule updates, compliance checks, or cross-referencing with other environmental data.

Resources