Skip to main content
Glama

Npi Registry

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. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds crucial behavioral context: default free model, BYO key for Anthropic with direct payment, and the structure of the return value. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise paragraph, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, explaining defaults, optional behavior, return structure, and use cases without redundancy.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers inputs, behavior, return values, and use cases. The annotations provide strong safety guarantees, so the description is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter descriptions. The tool description further enriches meaning by explaining the default model, when the _apiKey is needed, and how context helps disambiguate. Adds significant 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 clearly states the tool probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and returns a visibility score. It uses specific verbs ('probe', 'score') and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on visibility auditing rather than general Q&A or research.

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 lists use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or contrast it with alternatives like compare_entities or deep_research. Provides clear context but no exclusions.

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

All Npi Registry 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools are generally distinct, with clear purposes for NPI registry operations, but some overlap exists between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, which all route to the same underlying data but with different response modes. Additionally, bet_research and polymarket_edges both offer analysis of prediction markets, causing potential confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mixed: some tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., search, remember, forget), while others use descriptive but non-pattern names like ai_visibility_check or ask_pipeworx_grounded. There is also a mix of snake_case and camelCase (e.g., generate_llms_txt vs. ai_visibility_check).

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the count is slightly high but still reasonable given the broad scope of the server, which covers NPI registry, company profiles, prediction markets, AI visibility, and more. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, though a few could potentially be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers the NPI registry core (search, get by NPI) but lacks obvious CRUD operations like create, update, or delete for providers. For other domains like company profiles, it has good coverage, but the NPI-specific functionality feels incomplete without lifecycle management.

Resources