Skip to main content
Glama

Paperswithcode

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. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / _apiKey
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional Anthropic API key (sk-ant-...) — only needed if \"anthropic\" is in models. Passed straight through to api.anthropic.com.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: a phrase locating the entity (e.g. \"Boston restaurant\", \"B2B SaaS\", \"Polish painter\"). Helps disambiguate common names."New value: +"Optional: a phrase locating the entity (e.g. \"Boston restaurant\", \"B2B SaaS\"). Helps disambiguate common names."
    • changedInput schema / properties / entity / description
      Previous value: -"The thing to ask about. Brand/business name, product name, person, or topic. E.g. \"Pipeworx\", \"OpenInvoice\", \"Acme Corp pricing\", \"the company behind ChatGPT\"."New value: +"The thing to ask about. Brand/business name, product name, person, or topic. E.g. \"Pipeworx\", \"OpenInvoice\", \"Acme Corp pricing\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / models
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which models to probe. Supported: \"workers-ai\" (free default), \"anthropic\" (requires _apiKey). Omit for just workers-ai.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable details: the return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response + combined view) and cost implications (free for Workers AI, BYO key for Anthropic). No contradictions.

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, well-structured paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, default behavior, optional parameters, return format, and use cases. No superfluous words, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly outlines the return shape and explains the function of each parameter. It adequately covers the tool's complexity, including dual-model probing and the role of the context parameter.

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 parameters. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining default model behavior, the optional nature of _apiKey, and the disambiguation benefit of context. This adds value without being redundant.

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 what the tool does: probe LLMs for knowledge about an entity and score visibility from 0-100. It specifies the default model and the optional Anthropic probe. The use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) differentiate it from sibling tools.

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 explains when to use the tool (for visibility checks) and how to extend it (apiKey for Anthropic). It doesn't explicitly set against alternatives, but the unique purpose and the specificity of usage instructions make it clear.

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

All Paperswithcode 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

Several tools form overlapping families: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research cover much of the same router territory, and five Polymarket tools overlap heavily on edge/arbitrage analysis. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent would regularly need to compare multiple near-equivalent candidates before choosing one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case and readable, but the conventions vary widely: verb_noun (search_papers, resolve_entity), noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, recent_changes), bare verbs (remember, subscribe, forget), and suffixed variants (ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded). It is not chaotic, but there is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

Thirty-five tools is far too many for a server named Paperswithcode, especially since only four tools actually relate to papers while the rest cover data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm auditing, llms.txt generation, and AI visibility. The count feels bloated and the scope unfocused relative to the server's apparent identity.

Completeness3/5

The paper-discovery subdomain is reasonably covered with search, trending, detail, and implementation lookup, and the broader set includes discovery, memory, subscription lifecycle, and feedback tools. However, the overall surface is a patchwork of unrelated domains with no well-defined boundary, and paper datasets/models can only be counted rather than directly listed. Agents can work around most gaps, but the coverage is uneven.

Resources