Skip to main content
Glama

iplookup

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. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / _apiKey
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional Anthropic API key (sk-ant-...) — only needed if \"anthropic\" is in models. Passed straight through to api.anthropic.com.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: a phrase locating the entity (e.g. \"Boston restaurant\", \"B2B SaaS\", \"Polish painter\"). Helps disambiguate common names."New value: +"Optional: a phrase locating the entity (e.g. \"Boston restaurant\", \"B2B SaaS\"). Helps disambiguate common names."
    • changedInput schema / properties / entity / description
      Previous value: -"The thing to ask about. Brand/business name, product name, person, or topic. E.g. \"Pipeworx\", \"OpenInvoice\", \"Acme Corp pricing\", \"the company behind ChatGPT\"."New value: +"The thing to ask about. Brand/business name, product name, person, or topic. E.g. \"Pipeworx\", \"OpenInvoice\", \"Acme Corp pricing\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / models
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which models to probe. Supported: \"workers-ai\" (free default), \"anthropic\" (requires _apiKey). Omit for just workers-ai.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the free vs. paid billing model ('pass `_apiKey` to also probe Anthropic (BYO key — you pay Anthropic directly)') and describes the exact return shape (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view). This goes beyond just repeating the annotation hints.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds necessary detail (default model/cost, return format, use cases) with zero filler. It is tightly structured and easy to scan.

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?

The tool probes external LLMs and has no output schema, so the description must explain the return format, which it does clearly. It also covers the cost model and use cases. It lacks explicit failure/rate-limit notes, but for a read-only, non-destructive tool with good annotations and a clear return shape, the description is adequately complete.

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%, and the schema already describes all four parameters in detail. The description adds extra semantic value by clarifying the default for 'models' ('Default model is Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b'), the cost implication of 'anthropic', and that _apiKey is only needed when 'anthropic' is included. This goes slightly beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Probe one or more LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic and score visibility (0-100) per model.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like entity_profile or scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on LLM probing with a numeric visibility score. It also states the default model and return format, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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: 'Useful for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It also explains when to pass _apiKey (to also probe Anthropic) and that the default is free Workers AI. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, stopping short of a 5.

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

All iplookup 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 tool groups have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, polymarket_edges/arbitrage/bet_research overlap heavily, and scan_competitor_ai_presence merely wraps ai_visibility_check. An agent would frequently have to guess which of several overlapping tools to call.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use lowercase snake_case, but the set mixes verb-first names (resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun/service-first compounds (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending, ai_visibility_check) and inconsistent suffix semantics (ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded). The pattern is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is far too many for a server named iplookup; only 2 of 33 relate to IP geolocation. The rest form a sprawling data/prediction-market/memory platform that would be better split into multiple focused servers.

Completeness4/5

Within the actual described scope (a Pipeworx data platform), coverage is strong: routed lookups, grounded verification, deep research, entity identity/profile/comparison, claim validation, discovery, subscriptions, memory, feedback, trending, and a full prediction-market arbitrage suite. Minor gaps exist (no direct pack-listing tool, no update for memory values), but there are no critical dead ends.

Resources