Skip to main content
Glama

Pypi Stats

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds significant behavioral details: default model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b), BYO API key requirement for Anthropic, and the return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response + 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?

The description is concise (4-5 sentences) and well-structured: action, model options, return format, use cases. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description fully covers input expectations, behavior, and output structure. It provides enough detail for an agent to use the tool correctly, especially with the annotations supporting the safety profile.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the default model for the 'models' parameter, the role of '_apiKey', and how 'context' disambiguates entities. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 uses specific verbs ('Probe', 'score visibility') and clearly identifies the resource (LLMs' knowledge of a business/brand/product/topic) with a measurable output (0-100 score). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on AI visibility scoring, which is unique among the listed 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 this tool (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and how to configure it (default model, conditional Anthropic probing). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings, 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 Pypi Stats 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap between tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all performing similar data lookup functions. Additionally, multiple prediction market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) have overlapping purposes. An agent would struggle to choose the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern and use clear domain prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, python_) and verb_noun structure (e.g., validate_claim, compare_entities). Minor inconsistency exists with tools like 'overall' not following verb_noun, but overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 36 tools, the count is high but justifiable given the broad array of capabilities (data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). However, the server name 'Pypi Stats' suggests a narrow focus, making the count feel excessive for that purpose. The actual scope is wide, so the count is borderline appropriate.

Completeness4/5

For its actual scope as a data query and analysis platform, the tool set is quite complete: it covers company profiles, comparisons, claim verification, trend analysis, and prediction market insights. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for most data types), but core query and lookup operations are well covered.

Resources