Skip to main content
Glama

Gitlab Public

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already confirm idempotent, read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the default model (Workers AI, free) and the cost implication of passing `_apiKey` (BYO key, you pay directly). It also details the return format (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response + combined view), which is essential since there is no output schema.

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 (four sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence covers purpose and output, second covers defaults and key, third covers return structure, fourth covers use cases. Every sentence adds unique value 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?

Given the moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers return format, default behavior, optional API key for extra models, and use cases. No gaps remain for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents parameters. The description adds integration context: linking `_apiKey` to probing Anthropic, stating the default model when `models` is omitted, and noting that `context` disambiguates entities. This ties parameters to functional behavior beyond schema definitions.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Probe', 'score') and resource ('LLMs for a business/brand/product/topic'), and explicitly defines the output ('visibility (0-100) per model'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on cross-model visibility scoring rather than just scanning one model or competitor 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 provides clear use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools among siblings. The context is sufficient for selection, but exclusions would improve guidance.

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

All Gitlab Public 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The vast majority of tools are unrelated to GitLab and cover overlapping domains (multiple ask_pipeworx variants, several Polymarket tools, memory tools). Only three GitLab-specific tools exist, and they are distinct from each other, but overall the set is highly heterogeneous and ambiguous.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use a mix of conventions: some are snake_case (ask_pipeworx, search_issues), some are compound nouns (get_project, list_subscriptions), and a few are single words (forget, recall). There is no consistent pattern, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

Despite the server name 'Gitlab Public', only 3 out of 34 tools are related to GitLab. The remaining 31 tools are a collection of unrelated services (Pipeworx data retrieval, Polymarket betting, memory, AI visibility). This is a severe mismatch between the server's stated purpose and its tool composition.

Completeness1/5

For a GitLab public server, essential tools like project creation, deletion, user management, and merge request handling are completely missing. The Pipeworx tools, while numerous, lack a clear cohesive scope and overlap significantly with each other.

Resources