Skip to main content
Glama

Fas

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable behavioral details: default model is free, Anthropic requires a separate key and direct payment, and it details the return structure (per-model score/confidence/signals/raw_response plus 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single paragraph of moderate length, with each sentence adding value. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with optional details and use cases. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it remains clear and efficient without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format. Annotations cover safety. All parameters are described in schema and enriched in description. Use cases are listed. The tool is simple enough that the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation and understanding of output.

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 parameters are well-described. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the default model, the optional nature of models parameter, and how 'context' disambiguates. It also clarifies that _apiKey is only needed for Anthropic and that it's passed directly.

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 identifies the resource ('LLMs', 'business/brand/product/topic'). It clearly differentiates from siblings by stating use cases like 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring', which are distinct from other tools like 'compare_entities' or 'scan_competitor_ai_presence'.

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: for AI-marketing audits, brand checks, and competitive monitoring. It provides context about default model and optional Anthropic probe with a BYO key. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct comparisons to sibling tools, though the use case context implicitly guides selection.

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

All Fas 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. deep_research vs. validate_claim). However, a few pairs like ask_pipeworx_beta vs. ask_pipeworx and validate_claim vs. ask_pipeworx_grounded have overlapping roles, even though descriptions do differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently, and many follow a verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, subscribe). Some exceptions like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and pipeworx_trending break the strict verb_noun pattern but remain readable and stylistically uniform.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, this is above the typical 'well-scoped' range and exceeds the 25-tool threshold for heavy servers. However, the server covers a very broad domain (financial data, prediction markets, agriculture, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions), which partially justifies the count, but it still feels bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers all major workflows: data querying (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), entity resolution and comparison, prediction-market analysis, agricultural data (FAS tools), memory (remember/recall/forget), and subscription management (subscribe/unsubscribe/list). The only minor gap is lack of direct write/update operations for external data, but that's not expected for a read-heavy platform.

Resources