Skip to main content
Glama

Jsonschema

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the default free model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b), the need for an Anthropic API key for anthropic calls, and direct billing implications. It also discloses the 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, front-loaded with the main function, then model details, then use cases. Every sentence contributes without redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing per-model fields and combined view. It covers purpose, model selection, cost, and use cases. Minor gaps like error handling or rate limits do not detract significantly given the tool's read-only nature.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the default model, emphasizing the API key trade-off (BYO key and direct billing), and tying context to disambiguation. This pushes the score to 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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 a business/brand/product/topic and scores visibility 0-100 per model, which is a specific verb+resource+output combination. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence, though the per-model scoring and combined view are distinguishing features.

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.' It implies when to use the tool but does not state when not to use it or explicitly compare with alternatives, which prevents a 5.

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

All Jsonschema 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

Several tools occupy the same entry-point role (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions), and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The Polymarket family is carefully described but still has heavily overlapping discovery/edge surfaces. Only validate_json_schema is unambiguous, and it has no related siblings to clarify its position.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix verb-first forms (discover_tools, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity), noun-first forms (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback), and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). Prefix conventions are inconsistent—ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges, recent_changes—and almost none of the names reflect the server name Jsonschema.

Tool Count1/5

32 tools is already too many, but for a server named Jsonschema only one tool belongs to that domain; the rest form a broad data-research and prediction-market suite. This is an extreme scoping mismatch: the set is simultaneously oversized and almost entirely off-purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a JSON Schema server, the surface is essentially one operation: validate_json_schema. Common schema lifecycle operations—generation, parsing, conversion, ref resolution, linting—are missing, leaving most JSON Schema tasks impossible. The unrelated data-research tools are internally rich, but they do not complete the apparent domain.

Resources