Skip to main content
Glama

Google_search_console

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral context: free default model, BYO key for Anthropic, per-model return structure. 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?

Three sentences covering purpose, default behavior, key option (apiKey), and output structure. Every sentence adds value; no filler or 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?

For a tool with 4 params, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully explains inputs, default behavior, optional apiKey usage, and return format (per-model scores + combined view). No missing aspects.

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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds meaning: default model ('workers-ai' free), '_apiKey' passed straight to Anthropic, 'context' disambiguates. Provides richer guidance than schema alone.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Probe') and resources ('LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic') with explicit outputs ('score visibility (0-100) per model'). Distinguishes clearly from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on AI knowledge 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?

States use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring'). Explains default model (free) and when to provide '_apiKey' for Anthropic. Doesn't explicitly list when not to use, but context signals with similar tools like 'compare_entities' imply mutual exclusivity.

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

All Google_search_console 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set has several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, multiple polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) occupy the same prediction-market space, and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates. A few tools (memory triad, gsc_* calls) are crisp, but the boundaries between the meta-research tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, validate_claim) are not obvious enough to prevent misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mixed bag: some tools follow snake_case verb_noun (gsc_list_sites, resolve_entity, search_within), others are lowercased concatenations (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and several are bare nouns or adjectives (recent_alerts, forget, recall, process). There is no consistent verb style or separator convention across the set.

Tool Count1/5

35 tools is already heavy, but the bigger problem is that only 4 of them (gsc_list_sites, gsc_list_sitemaps, gsc_inspect_url, gsc_search_analytics) relate to the server's stated Google Search Console purpose. The remaining 31 are a sprawling Pipeworx data/prediction-market/memory toolkit, making the count wildly disproportionate to the apparent scope.

Completeness1/5

For a Google Search Console server, the surface is severely incomplete: it can list sites/sitemaps, inspect URLs, and query analytics, but lacks sitemap submission, property add/remove, URL removal/access control, and other core GSC operations. Conversely, the 31 off-domain tools make the domain itself incoherent — an agent cannot tell what this server is actually for.

Resources