Skip to main content
Glama

Passive Aggression

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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds significant behavioral context: default model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b free), cost implications for Anthropic (BYO key), and return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response + combined view). No contradictions 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 three sentences: first sentence states core action and output, second explains parameters and cost, third gives use cases. Every sentence earns its place, no fluff, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-model probing, scoring, multiple parameters), the description covers purpose, all parameters with usage notes, return format, and use cases. No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the response structure.

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 value beyond schema: default model behavior, that _apiKey is only needed for Anthropic, and that context helps disambiguate. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 purpose: probing LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scoring visibility (0-100) per model. It specifies the verb (probe, score), resource (LLMs, visibility), and distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or compare_entities, which focus on different tasks.

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 explicitly mentions use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' While it doesn't list exclusions or compare to alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool.

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

All Passive Aggression 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

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the various data query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, etc.) that share similar functionality with subtle differences. The detailed descriptions help but the boundaries are not always clear, making it hard for an agent to reliably select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming follows a mix of patterns: some tools use consistent verb_noun (subscribe, unsubscribe, remember, recall) but others are inconsistent (ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs entity_profile). The main data tools have a common prefix but diverge in style, and the presence of tools like passive_aggression_detect and generate_llms_txt adds further inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the server feels bloated. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx variants, the Polymarket tools). The inclusion of tangential tools like passive_aggression_detect and generate_llms_txt suggests scope creep. A typical well-scoped server would have 10-15 tools.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of data access and some auxiliary functions (memory, subscriptions, feedback), but there are notable gaps like user authentication and data visualization. The addition of an unrelated sentiment analysis tool makes the surface feel incomplete for a focused data server.

Resources