Skip to main content
Glama

Gov Auctions

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral details: that the default model is free and that Anthropic requires a BYO key, plus the return structure.

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 a single compact paragraph, starting with the core action and progressively adding details. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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's 4 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the input semantics, use cases, and return structure. It could mention more about the output format but is adequate 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds meaning by stating the default model and the condition for using _apiKey, which clarifies the parameter's role beyond its schema description.

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 verb 'probe' and the resource 'LLMs', specifies scoring 0-100 per model, and distinguishes this from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx which are about querying a specific knowledge base.

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?

It explicitly lists use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and explains when to provide the _apiKey for Anthropic. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it vs siblings.

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

All Gov Auctions 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy nearly the same question-answering niche: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical by its own description), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim are easy to confuse. The polymarket suite also has overlapping edge/arbitrage/fill-risk boundaries, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve onboarding. The verbose descriptions help, but the set as a whole creates real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow clear snake_case verb_noun or domain-prefix patterns (auctions_search, polymarket_edges, subscribe/unsubscribe, remember/recall/forget). Minor inconsistencies exist: auction_lot_details is singular while the auction group is plural, and polymarket_edges versus polymarket_edge_tracker breaks the prefix pattern slightly. Overall the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold and feels bloated for a server named 'Gov Auctions': only 5 tools actually concern auctions, while the rest are general Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and utility tools. Even as a general data platform, the count is heavy and includes several overlapping meta-tools.

Completeness4/5

For the auction-specific surface, the set covers search, lot details, closing-soon, historical sold prices, and data coverage, which is a solid read-only lifecycle. The main gaps are non-critical: no auction-category browser, no auction-specific alert/subscription type, and no bidding workflow. The broad research/esolution tools fill in most adjacent data needs even if they dilute the server's stated focus.

Resources