Skip to main content
Glama

Notion_connect

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: costs (BYO key for Anthropic), default free model, return format (per-model and combined view), and that Anthropic calls are paid directly. 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 a single well-structured paragraph (~100 words). It front-loads the main action and output, then covers optional features, return format, and use cases. Every sentence adds value; no unnecessary content.

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 tool has 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and straightforward behavior, the description is complete. It explains the return format (per-model and combined), how to use optional parameters, and the use cases. No gaps identified.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining when to use each parameter: entity is the thing to ask about, models list which models, _apiKey is only needed for Anthropic, context helps disambiguate. This exceeds the baseline.

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 an entity and scores visibility (0-100) per model. It specifies the default model and optional Anthropic integration. The verb 'probe' and resource 'visibility score' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like '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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. It explains when to pass the _apiKey (for Anthropic model). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'deep_research' or 'entity_profile'.

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

All Notion_connect 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

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same 5,708 tools, with beta explicitly described as currently identical to the stable version. Prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) also blur together, and the Notion tools are a small island in a sea of unrelated Pipeworx utilities.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are uniformly lowercase with underscores, but conventions are mixed: some use verb-first patterns (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency), others are noun-phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and domain prefixes are inconsistent (notion_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, but bare bet_research, compare_entities, recall). It is readable but lacks a coherent naming scheme.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is already heavy, but the bigger issue is scope: the server is named Notion_connect yet only 5 of 36 tools relate to Notion. The rest span data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm auditing, and llms.txt generation — a grab bag far beyond any single purpose, with multiple redundant meta-tools inflating the count.

Completeness2/5

As a Notion connector it is severely incomplete: there is no create/update/delete for pages or databases, and no way to write content back to Notion — only read/search/query operations. For the broader Pipeworx surface, the tool set is sprawling but unfocused, so it is hard to identify a coherent domain where coverage could be considered complete.

Resources