Skip to main content
Glama

Osv

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: default model is free, Anthropic requires BYO key and direct payment, and the return structure. It does not mention rate limits or data usage, but annotations cover safety adequately.

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 concise (about 80 words) and well-structured. The first sentence states the main action, the second provides usage details and return format. No redundant information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response plus combined view). It covers model selection and entity disambiguation with context. However, it doesn't clarify how to interpret the score or signals, leaving some gaps.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds extra context: default model specifics, entity examples, and the role of context. While the schema already defines parameters, the description enriches understanding of their use.

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 about an entity and scores visibility (0-100). The verb 'probe' and resource 'LLMs' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or compare_entities by focusing on AI visibility scoring.

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.' It also explains when to use the default free model vs. Anthropic with a key. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or contrast with alternatives.

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

All Osv 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar, as are the suite of polymarket_* tools. While descriptions help differentiate, an agent may struggle to choose the correct one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, but they mix verb-first patterns (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim) with noun-first patterns (bet_research, entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback). This inconsistency makes it harder to guess tool names by convention.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is on the high side but not unreasonable for a platform covering vulnerability queries, data retrieval, prediction markets, and utilities. However, the server name 'Osv' suggests a narrow focus, making the large count feel bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations: querying data, comparing entities, managing user data, monitoring subscriptions, and even onboarding. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct API for updating user profiles), but overall it is well-rounded for its domain.

Resources