Skip to main content
Glama

Prayer Times

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds important behavioral details: costs for Anthropic calls, per-model return structure (score, confidence, signals, raw_response), and combined view. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single coherent paragraph that front-loads the action and return type. It is informative without being verbose but could benefit from slightly more structured formatting for quick scanning.

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 4 parameters (all described), no output schema, and sibling tools, the description adequately covers return format, usage context, and parameter behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds extra value by explaining default model, cost implications for _apiKey, and how the 'context' parameter helps disambiguate. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 probes LLMs for brand/topic knowledge and provides a visibility score. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., deep_research, entity_profile) by focusing on AI visibility scoring, not general search.

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 (marketing audits, pre-launch checks, competitive monitoring) and default behavior. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance but provides sufficient context for appropriate invocation.

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

All Prayer Times 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, though there is some overlap between `ai_visibility_check` and `scan_competitor_ai_presence`, and between `bet_research` and `polymarket_edges`. Overall, an agent can distinguish them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow snake_case but vary in prefix usage (e.g., `pipeworx_*`, `polymarket_*`, no prefix) and verb presence (e.g., `discover_tools` vs. `generate_llms_txt`). The pattern is readable but inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 24 tools, the server is overloaded for the 'Prayer Times' name. Many tools are unrelated to prayer, suggesting poor scoping relative to the server's implied purpose.

Completeness2/5

For prayer times, the server includes core tools but lacks features like multi-day forecasts or advanced settings. However, the inclusion of many unrelated tools makes the set incoherent and incomplete for any single domain.

Resources