Skip to main content
Glama

Producthunt

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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark as readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing default model pricing, that Anthropic calls are billed separately, and the output structure (per-model data + 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no fluff. Every part adds value: what it does, default model, optional Anhtropic usage, return format, and use cases.

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 fully documents return format (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view). All 4 parameters are explained with usage context, making it self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining default model selection, that _apiKey is only needed for anthropic, and that context disambiguates entities, which 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 visibility and scores it 0-100 per model. It specifies verb 'Probe' and resource 'LLMs for business/brand/product/topic', effectively differentiating from siblings like deep_research or scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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) and explains when to use Anthropic model (BYO key). It lacks explicit exclusion conditions or direct alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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

All Producthunt 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 are functionally near-identical: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly a duplicate of ask_pipeworx (descriptions say they 'currently match exactly'), and ask_pipeworx_grounded differs only in answer-extraction mode. The six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlap on edge-finding and fill-risk, and ai_visibility_check duplicates scan_competitor_ai_presence's per-entity probing. Agents will frequently misselect among these.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is consistently snake_case with a mostly verb_noun pattern (get_post, top_launches, subscribe, forget, validate_claim, resolve_entity). Minor deviations exist where nouns lead (entity_profile, recent_changes, recent_alerts, bet_research), and polymarket_* names use a domain-prefix style rather than pure verb_noun, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is at the heavy end, and the count is badly mismatched to the server's stated identity: it is named 'Producthunt' yet only 2 of 33 tools (get_post, top_launches) are Product Hunt related — the rest are Pipeworx data lookup, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools. The redundancy (duplicate ask_pipeworx_beta, overlapping polymarket tools) inflates the count without adding surface.

Completeness2/5

Judged against the Product Hunt domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: coverage is limited to list-top-launches and get-one-post, with no search, users, comments, votes, collections, or categories — and no way to act on Product Hunt data at all. As a general Pipeworx data platform the coverage is broader, but for the named purpose there are large gaps that will force agent failures.

Resources