Skip to main content
Glama

Lobsters

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. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds significant behavioral context: default model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b, free), requirement of _apiKey for Anthropic, return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response), and that it probes 'one or more LLMs'. No contradiction 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?

The description is 4 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and scoring mechanism. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy or fluff. It efficiently covers what, how, returns, and use cases.

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?

Given the complexity of 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is thorough: explains inputs, default model, optional Anthropic key, return structure, and use cases. The annotations cover safety. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

All 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds value by explaining their purpose in context: 'entity' as the thing to ask about, 'models' lists supported values, '_apiKey' for Anthropic billing, 'context' for disambiguation. It also clarifies default behavior when models is omitted.

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 a business/brand/product/topic and returns a visibility score per model. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ask_pipeworx' and 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing specifically on AI visibility scoring.

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 specifies use cases: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. It explains when to use optional parameters like models and _apiKey. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though the context is clear enough.

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

All Lobsters 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., three tools for querying Pipeworx data (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research), and six tools for Polymarket prediction markets. The boundaries between them are unclear, causing potential for misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are all snake_case but follow inconsistent patterns: some use verb_noun (get_hottest, get_newest), some are single verbs (remember, forget), and others are noun_noun (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage). While readable, the lack of a consistent pattern adds confusion.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given its name 'Lobsters' suggests a focus on that site, yet only 4 tools are Lobsters-related. The majority belong to Pipeworx, Polymarket, and generic utilities, making the scope extremely broad and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the implied domain of Lobsters, the tool set is incomplete (missing create/update/delete). For the broader domains (Pipeworx, Polymarket), the set is extensive but doesn't align with the server's name. The lack of a coherent domain leaves obvious gaps relative to any single purpose.

Resources