Skip to main content
Glama

Nasa Cmr

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: free default model, BYO key for Anthropic with direct payment, return structure (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 concise (about 4 sentences) with a clear structure: purpose first, then details on model options, return format, and use cases. Every sentence is informative; no wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description describes the return format sufficiently ('per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + a combined view'). It covers main usage scenarios. However, it does not detail what 'signals' are or the exact raw_response structure, leaving minor gaps.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds value beyond schema: clarifies default model is free, explains `_apiKey` as 'BYO key — you pay Anthropic directly', and notes `context` helps disambiguate. This extra context aids selection.

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 entities and scores visibility, with specific verb ('Probe', 'score'), resource ('LLMs for business/brand/product/topic'), and output (visibility 0-100 per model). It also distinguishes the default model and optional Anthropic probe, making it distinct from sibling tools like 'ask_pipeworx' or 'scan_competitor_ai_presence'.

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 mentions use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It also explains when to include `_apiKey` (if Anthropic model is used). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or compare directly with siblings, though the context signals help.

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

All Nasa Cmr 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes NASA-specific tools with a large number of financial and prediction market tools, causing confusion. Within the non-NASA tools, there is significant overlap (e.g., multiple Polymarket analysis tools, several research tools with vague boundaries).

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but naming patterns are inconsistent: some start with verbs (search_collections, get_collection), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research). There is no uniform verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the count is high. Although it may be appropriate for the underlying domain (data/prediction markets), it is excessive for the server's stated NASA focus, where only 3 tools are relevant.

Completeness1/5

For a server named 'Nasa Cmr', the tool set is severely incomplete: only three tools cover NASA Earth science (search/granules/collections), lacking any support for missions, datasets, or advanced queries. The non-NASA tools are comprehensive but disconnected from the server name.

Resources