Skip to main content
Glama

Intact

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it makes external API calls to Workers AI and optionally Anthropic, and that the user pays Anthropic directly when using that model. This is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though it does not mention rate limits or error handling.

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 four sentences that flow logically: action, default behavior, return format, use cases. Every sentence adds value without repetition 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response, plus combined view). With 4 parameters fully described and clear use cases, the tool is self-contained and understandable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the default model, the need for _apiKey only for Anthropic, and the return format. This enhances understanding beyond the bare 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 entities and scores visibility (0-100). It specifies the default model and the option to add Anthropic. This differentiates it from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' which likely does a different task.

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 lists use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring). It explains the default model and the API key requirement for Anthropic. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, though the context implies its niche.

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

All Intact 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have strong, detailed descriptions with explicit usage guidance, but a few clusters are genuinely ambiguous: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact duplicate of ask_pipeworx, and the Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker) overlap heavily in purpose. The descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could still easily select the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are snake_case and most follow an imperative verb-first pattern such as resolve_entity, subscribe, or validate_claim. A few noun-style names like entity_profile, bet_research, and interaction_count deviate, but the consistent underscore style and clear prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_ keep the set predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 top-level tools, the surface is heavy, and several tools are near-duplicates or narrow variants of the same core capability. The broad scope explains some of the count, but the agent-facing API would be cleaner with fewer, more consolidated entry points.

Completeness5/5

The set provides strong lifecycle coverage for its main workflows: querying and grounding, deep research, entity resolution, company profiling, comparisons, Polymarket edge analysis with fill-risk checks, memory storage, and subscription management. There are no obvious dead ends that would prevent an agent from completing a typical task.

Resources