Skip to main content
Glama

Gdelt

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it explains the default model is free, that Anthropic probing requires a BYO key paid directly to Anthropic, and the output format. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value — no redundant information. The structure flows logically: action, default behavior, optional enhancement, output summary.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view). It also covers use cases and configuration. Missing are potential error cases (e.g., invalid API key), but the description is sufficient for typical usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the description elaborates on parameters: it explains the default model for `models`, clarifies that `_apiKey` is only needed for Anthropic and how it's used, and that `context` helps disambiguate. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 LLMs for knowledge about an entity and returns a visibility score (0-100). It specifies the default model, optional Anthropic probing, and the return structure. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' or 'search_within', as it focuses on AI visibility 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 lists use cases: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. It implies when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternative tools. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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

All Gdelt 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

Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, and discover_tools/suggest_questions plus entity_profile/recent_changes/compare_entities/validate_claim overlap in purpose. An agent selecting among the five ask/deep-research variants or six Polymarket tools will frequently need to read lengthy descriptions to avoid picking the wrong one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are readable snake_case and clear verb_noun phrases like search_articles, resolve_entity, and validate_claim, with helpful families like polymarket_* and timeline_*. However, several tools are bare noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending, tone_distribution), and the memory trio (remember/recall/forget) breaks the domain-prefix pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is past the 25+ threshold and feels bloated for a server nominally about GDELT; much of the surface is meta/utility tooling (diagnostics, memory, discovery, subscriptions) rather than core news retrieval. Several tools could be consolidated, such as ask_pipeworx_beta and the multiple Polymarket edge/arb/research variants.

Completeness4/5

For its broad data/news/prediction-market scope, the surface is quite complete: GDELT search, volume, tone, and distribution are covered, along with entity resolution, company profiles, comparisons, claim verification, and trade-side analytics. Minor gaps exist, such as no full-text article fetch or direct GDELT raw-event export, but agents can mostly work around them.

Resources