Skip to main content
Glama

Openweather

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: cost implications (BYO key pays Anthropic directly), output shape (score, confidence, signals, raw_response), and default model selection, which goes beyond 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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose, then cover usage specifics (default model, API key) and use cases. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy or clutter.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully documents return structure (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view). Parameter docs plus description cover all behavior needed for selection and invocation.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds contextual value (default model, BYO key requirement) but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 brand/topic knowledge and scores visibility (0-100) per model. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on per-model scoring with specific output structure.

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 explicit context: default free model, BYO key for Anthropic, and example use cases (AI-marketing audits, brand checks). However, it does not specify when to avoid this tool or compare alternatives among siblings.

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

All Openweather 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. However, 'ask_pipeworx' and 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' are very similar, and 'polymarket_arbitrage' and 'polymarket_edges' overlap in scope, which could cause confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mostly use snake_case but mix verb-first (e.g., 'compare_entities', 'resolve_entity') and noun-first (e.g., 'air_quality', 'entity_profile') patterns. Some names are single words ('forecast', 'geocode'), showing overall inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

With 30 tools, the server covers many domains (weather, company info, betting, memory, subscriptions). While each tool serves a purpose, the count is on the higher side and could be streamlined, but it's not excessive given the diverse functionality.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for its domains: weather (current, forecast, air quality), company research (profile, compare, recent changes, validation), betting (research, arbitrage, edges), memory (CRUD), and subscriptions (CRUD). Minor gaps include no tool for editing subscriptions or deleting weather data, but these are outside the intended scope.

Resources