Skip to main content
Glama

Magic 8 Ball

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds key behavioral details: it probes LLMs, scores per model, requires a BYO API key for Anthropic (with direct payment), and returns per-model results. No contradictions.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: front-loaded with core purpose, then model details, cost note, return format, and use cases. Concise yet comprehensive.

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 specifies return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response + combined view). It covers all parameters, their conditions, and the tool's utility. No gaps remain.

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 description supplements parameter meanings well: it explains that 'models' defaults to workers-ai, '_apiKey' is only needed for anthropic, and 'context' aids disambiguation. This adds value beyond the 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 uses specific verbs ('probe', 'score') and clearly states the resource (LLMs' knowledge of a business/brand/product/topic) and output (visibility 0-100). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ask_pipeworx' or 'deep_research' by focusing on AI visibility measurement across multiple models.

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 context ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and states default model vs. optional Anthropic probe. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with siblings that might seem similar (e.g., '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 Magic 8 Ball 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the three ask_pipeworx variants (standard, beta, grounded) share similar routing and could cause confusion for an agent. The memory tools and novelty tool are distinct. Overall, ambiguity is low.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, subscribe). Minor deviations like 'search_within' and 'magic_8_ball_ask' do not break the pattern. High consistency.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the server is on the heavier side for a single MCP server. However, given the broad domain coverage (financials, economics, prediction markets, etc.), each tool serves a distinct purpose. Bordering on too many, but justified by scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a comprehensive range of data research operations: querying, deep research, entity profiling, comparisons, discovery, subscriptions, alerts, claim validation, and prediction market analysis. Minor gaps exist (no data modification tools), but they are out of scope for a query-oriented server.

Resources