Skip to main content
Glama

Montreal Events

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
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already confirm read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: default model details, optional Anthropic probing with BYO key, and the shape of the return value (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view). 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?

The description is two sentences followed by the return structure list. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format (per-model result + combined view). However, it omits details on what 'signals' or 'raw_response' contain. For a moderate-complexity tool, it is largely complete but leaves minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds minor value by clarifying default model and BYO key, but does not significantly enhance meaning 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 clearly states the verb 'probe' and 'score' and the resource 'LLMs for a business/brand/product/topic'. It differentiates from sibling tools by its specific focus on AI visibility scoring, which is unique among siblings like ask_pipeworx or compare_entities.

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 explicitly lists use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and provides guidance on model selection (default vs. Anthropic). However, it does not explicitly exclude any scenarios or compare to sibling tools, lacking 'when not to use' guidance.

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

All Montreal Events 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set contains multiple near-duplicate meta-query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools) and five overlapping Polymarket analysis tools, creating genuine selection ambiguity despite detailed descriptions. The single events tool is distinct, but it is drowned out by a crowd of similar data-research utilities.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim, remember, forget). Only 'events' deviates by being a bare noun, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.

Tool Count1/5

32 tools is extreme for a server named 'Montreal Events', and only one tool actually relates to that domain. The remaining 31 form a sprawling, unrelated data-research, prediction-market, and memory toolkit that would overwhelm any agent trying to work with Montréal event data.

Completeness1/5

For the server's stated purpose, the surface is severely incomplete: a single read-only event search with no event details, venue info, categories, or management operations. The Pipeworx tools may cover their own domain thoroughly, but they contribute nothing to the Montreal Events scope.

Resources