Skip to main content
Glama

Mockdata

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds cost implications ('you pay Anthropic directly for those calls'), the default model, and the structure of the response. This goes beyond schema but doesn't fully detail edge cases like failure modes, so a 4 is appropriate.

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: the first states the core function, the second covers model and cost, the third covers return format and use cases. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 has no output schema, but the description mitigates this by specifying the per-model shape ({score, confidence, signals, raw_response}) and a combined view. Use cases are provided. It could mention pagination or limits, but for the tool's scope it's 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds extra context beyond the schema, including the default model, the callback for quoting that the user pays Anthropic directly, and the 'context' parameter's role in disambiguation. This earns a 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 uses a specific verb ('Probe') and identifies the resource (LLMs) and output (visibility score 0-100 per model). It also notes the return format and default model, making the tool's function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence, so it falls short of a 5.

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') and explains when the optional Anthropic probe is relevant. It does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it's a 4 rather than 5.

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

All Mockdata 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap within the ask_pipeworx family (beta, grounded) and Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, fill_risk), which could cause confusion. Detailed descriptions mitigate this, but the boundaries are not always clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use snake_case but lack a consistent verb_noun pattern. Some are imperative (discover_tools), others are descriptive (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), and some are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the higher side for a single server, but the broad scope (company data, prediction markets, memory, etc.) partially justifies the count. However, many tools are variations of core functionality, suggesting possible consolidation.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data sources and tasks, including company profiles, comparisons, economic data, and prediction markets. The universal ask_pipeworx router fills most gaps, though some niche data sources might not be directly accessible.

Resources