Skip to main content
Glama

Nyt

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: default model, BYO key for Anthropic, pass-through of apiKey, return structure. No contradiction 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 two well-structured sentences, front-loading purpose and default, with no wasted words.

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 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers tool behavior, optional key usage, and return structure.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining defaults and optionality, but the schema already covers parameter meanings.

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 it probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scores visibility (0-100) per model, with default model and optional Anthropic. This distinguishes it from siblings like entity_profile 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?

It mentions use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use.

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

All Nyt 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

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical today, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route to the same underlying sources with overlapping question-answering purposes. Entity-focused tools like entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and resolve_entity also have fuzzy boundaries that make selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix conventions: verb_noun (list_subscriptions, search_articles, generate_llms_txt), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), noun phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending, entity_profile), and an ask_* family with beta/grounded variants. There is no consistent verb or noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the surface is well above the 15-tool threshold for a focused server, and most tools are unrelated to the NYT domain implied by the server name. The breadth reflects a broad data-platform grab bag rather than a scoped, intentional tool set.

Completeness4/5

The query side is unusually complete: single-lookup, grounded lookup, deep research, claim validation, entity resolution, comparison, profile, change-feed, discovery, memory, and subscription lifecycle tools are all present. Minor gaps remain, such as no direct NYT article fetch by URL and no update path for stored memories, but agents can work around them.

Resources