Skip to main content
Glama

Excuse

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. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / _apiKey
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional Anthropic API key (sk-ant-...) — only needed if \"anthropic\" is in models. Passed straight through to api.anthropic.com.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: a phrase locating the entity (e.g. \"Boston restaurant\", \"B2B SaaS\", \"Polish painter\"). Helps disambiguate common names."New value: +"Optional: a phrase locating the entity (e.g. \"Boston restaurant\", \"B2B SaaS\"). Helps disambiguate common names."
    • changedInput schema / properties / entity / description
      Previous value: -"The thing to ask about. Brand/business name, product name, person, or topic. E.g. \"Pipeworx\", \"OpenInvoice\", \"Acme Corp pricing\", \"the company behind ChatGPT\"."New value: +"The thing to ask about. Brand/business name, product name, person, or topic. E.g. \"Pipeworx\", \"OpenInvoice\", \"Acme Corp pricing\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / models
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which models to probe. Supported: \"workers-ai\" (free default), \"anthropic\" (requires _apiKey). Omit for just workers-ai.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context by revealing that it makes external calls to LLMs and, when `_apiKey` is passed, calls Anthropic directly with the user paying. This is beyond what annotations capture and does not contradict them.

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 long and front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence carries essential information—purpose, model defaults, return format, and use cases—with no redundancy or fluff.

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 having no output schema, the description explicitly states the return shape (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view). It also covers model selection, authentication, and practical use cases, making it complete for an agent to decide on and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well-documented (e.g., models lists supported options, `_apiKey` clarifies the BYO-key requirement). The description reinforces but does not add significant new semantic depth beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action—'Probe one or more LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic and score visibility (0-100) per model.' This clearly states the tool's purpose and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools by focusing on multi-model visibility scoring. The added mention of per-model scoring and combined view makes the tool's unique value evident.

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 use-case context: 'Useful for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It also explains when to use the Anthropic model (pass `_apiKey`). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative siblings, keeping it from a 5.

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

All Excuse 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) all route to the same underlying 5,708-tool catalog with subtle behavioral differences that are easy to misselect. Entity-focused tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, scan_competitor_ai_presence) also overlap heavily in the data they return, making boundaries fuzzy.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the word-order convention is mixed: verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools) coexists with noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, recent_changes). The inconsistent reversal in excuse_generate versus generate_llms_txt further breaks the predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools the set is well past the well-scoped range, and several entries feel like padding: ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, while the seven Polymarket tools and five company-intelligence tools could each be consolidated into fewer distinct capabilities. The broad scope justifies a large surface, but this count makes the server difficult to navigate.

Completeness3/5

The core data-lookup lifecycle (resolve, fetch, ground, validate, research, compare) is well covered, and memory/subscription features round it out. Obvious gaps include no direct tool to read a pipeworx:// citation URI (despite deep_research referencing one), and the excuse_generate tool is an isolated one-off with no supporting tools in its domain.

Resources