Skip to main content
Glama

launches

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context: the default free model, the BYO Anthropic key and direct billing to the user, and the return structure. This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it doesn't cover potential rate limits or error conditions.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence earns its place: purpose, key configuration, return format, and use cases. No fluff or repetition.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately summarizes return values (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view) and covers default behavior. It lacks elaboration on what 'signals' or 'combined view' entail, but for a tool of this simplicity it is sufficiently 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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds extra semantics by explaining that _apiKey is needed for Anthropic, that the default model is free, and that the response includes per-model fields. This enriches the schema without being redundant.

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's function with a specific verb ('Probe'), resource ('one or more LLMs'), and output ('score visibility (0-100) per model'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by focusing on external LLM knowledge checks rather than pipe-related queries.

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?

Provides clear use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool versus comparable siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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

All launches 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have significantly overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all perform data retrieval, with beta currently identical to stable. The polymarket_* family and bet_research also blur boundaries, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions both handle discovery. Despite detailed descriptions, agents are likely to misselect among these overlapping options.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use snake_case, but conventions are mixed: some start with verbs (get_launch, search_launches, ask_pipeworx), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), and there are versioned suffixes (ask_pipeworx_beta). While each domain group has internal consistency, the overall set lacks a unified pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'launches'—only 4 tools (get_launch, get_past_launches, get_upcoming_launches, search_launches) actually relate to space launches. The remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains like prediction markets, company profiles, and memory, making the count inappropriate and diluting the server's focus.

Completeness2/5

For the claimed launch domain, the set provides only basic list/detail/search operations and lacks useful launch features like filtering by agency, date range, or launch site. More critically, the inclusion of 31 unrelated tools creates a fragmented surface with obvious dead ends—an agent expecting a launch-focused server would find most tools irrelevant.

Resources