Skip to main content
Glama

Fara

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
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond these: it discloses the cost model (free default, BYO key for Anthropic), the return structure (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} plus combined view), and the probing nature. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph covering function, defaults, optional parameters, return format, and use cases. Every sentence adds value. Slightly longer than necessary 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?

For a tool with moderate complexity (4 parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. Use cases are given. No output schema exists, but the description states what is returned. Sibling tools are present but not cross-referenced.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—e.g., examples for entity and clarification that _apiKey is only needed for anthropic. However, the schema already describes all parameters well; the description does not provide critical missing semantic details.

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 defines the tool's purpose: probing LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scoring visibility. It uses specific verbs ('probe', 'score') and specifies the resource ('one or more LLMs'). The description distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on individual entity visibility scoring, not competitive 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It also explains that the default model is free while Anthropic requires a paid key. However, it does not mention alternatives from the sibling list or specify when not to use this tool in favor of others.

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

All Fara 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

There are several clusters of tools with overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all do data-fetching/research with somewhat subtle differences. Polymarket tools also overlap (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research, polymarket_kalshi_spread). However, most tools have detailed descriptions that clarify their distinct roles, and the core data-lookup tools are differentiated by grounding level and scope.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., search_registrants, list_foreign_principals, get_registrant_documents, subscribe, unsubscribe, remember, recall, forget, resolve_entity, validate_claim). Deviations include brand-name tools like ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, and polymarket_kalshi_spread that mix conventions but are still readable and predictable within their domain.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a single MCP server, especially with multiple overlapping research entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions). The broad data-router nature of the server explains the size, but it is still a large surface that would be better consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The server covers its visible domains well: data lookup, grounded verification, entity profiling, comparison, change tracking, subscription lifecycle, memory, and FARA-specific queries. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for updating saved memory beyond forgetting/re-remembering, no tool to create custom alert types beyond the three supported categories), but the core workflows are complete.

Resources