Skip to main content
Glama

Oqmd

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the default free model, the requirement to pass an _apiKey for Anthropic, direct cost implications, and the return structure with per-model fields and a combined view. This goes beyond the safety profile.

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 four focused sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output. It covers default behavior, optional external calls, return format, and use cases without excess. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape ('per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + a combined view'). It covers parameters, defaults, costs, and use cases. Minor missing details like what 'confidence' or 'signals' mean are not essential for invocation, so a 4 is appropriate.

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% (all 4 parameters described in the input schema). The description repeats some parameter details (e.g., default model, _apiKey requirement) but does not add much new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, hence the baseline score.

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's action ('Probe one or more LLMs'), the target ('business / brand / product / topic'), and the output ('score visibility (0-100) per model'). It distinguishes from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by covering any entity, not just competitors, and by explicitly returning per-model scores.

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 use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains the default versus optional Anthropic probing behavior. It does not mention exclusions or explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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

All Oqmd 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions; multiple prediction market tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) have subtle distinctions. An agent would struggle to choose correctly among these.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt). A few are noun phrases (stable_phases) but the style is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a single server, especially given the mix of two unrelated domains (materials database and general data querying). Many prediction market tools could be consolidated, and the broad scope suggests over-engineering.

Completeness3/5

The materials data side covers search and retrieval adequately. The query side offers many capabilities but has redundant paths (e.g., multiple ways to ask questions) and gaps in editing or updating data. Overall coverage is mixed.

Resources