Skip to main content
Glama

Pombase

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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: that Workers AI is free, Anthropic requires a BYO key with direct payment, and the return format includes per-model details and a 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively concise, covering purpose, models, key handling, and return format in a single paragraph. It could be slightly more streamlined, but it avoids unnecessary detail and is front-loaded with purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should more completely describe the return structure. It mentions per-model fields and a combined view, but lacks detail on the combined view format. Given the parameter count and complexity, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema: e.g., that _apiKey is passed straight to Anthropic and users pay directly, and that context helps disambiguate. This extra value merits a 4.

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 for knowledge about a business/brand/product/topic and scores visibility. It specifies the default model and optional Anthropic probe. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx (general Q&A) and deep_research (comprehensive research).

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. While it doesn't directly contrast with siblings, the specific use cases imply when this tool is appropriate. Slightly more guidance on when not to use would improve this dimension.

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

All Pombase 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 have heavily overlapping purposes, notably ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, and the cluster of polymarket tools covers adjacent prediction-market analysis territory. The PomBase-specific tools are distinct, but the overall set creates real selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names follow a readable snake_case style and many use verb-first patterns, but there is notable mixing: ask_pipeworx is a brand-style exception, entity_profile and polymarket_arbitrage are noun-first, and remember/recall/forget form an inconsistent trio. Not chaotic, but not a clean predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named Pombase, where only get_gene and get_reference actually serve that domain. Even as a broad data-research server, the count is above the 25-tool threshold and includes many auxiliary utilities that feel bolted on rather than part of a focused surface.

Completeness2/5

The PomBase-specific coverage is severely thin: only systematic-ID gene lookup and PubMed-ID reference lookup, with no gene-name search, annotations browsing, phenotype data, or sequence access. The broader Pipeworx surface is extensive, but for the apparent Pombase purpose, agents will frequently hit dead ends.

Resources