Skip to main content
Glama

recipes

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. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: default model is Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b (free), `_apiKey` enables Anthropic probing with direct payment to Anthropic, and the return format includes per-model `{score, confidence, signals, raw_response}` plus a combined view. This exceeds what annotations specify without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and output, the second explains model defaults and API key handling, the third lists use cases. Front-loaded and free of fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, which it does explicitly (per-model structure plus combined view). It also covers model selection, key handling, and use cases, making the tool's behavior sufficiently clear 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?

The schema already documents all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic nuance by explaining the cost/free default for the `models` parameter and the BYO-key nature of `_apiKey`, clarifying trade-offs not in the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Probe') and resource ('one or more LLMs') to define the action, and clearly states the output (visibility score 0-100 per model). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on AI visibility scoring for brands/topics, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 lists use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring'), providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like `scan_competitor_ai_presence` or `ask_pipeworx`, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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

All recipes 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a highly specific purpose with detailed descriptions, making them easily distinguishable. Overlaps are minimal; for instance, Pipeworx and Polymarket tools have distinct roles within their domains.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), but a few single-word names (e.g., forget, recall) deviate slightly, causing minor inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

The server is named 'recipes' but contains only 4 recipe-related tools out of 34. The majority cover unrelated domains like finance, betting, and data queries, making the scope overly broad and misaligned with the server name.

Completeness2/5

For the 'recipes' domain, essential CRUD operations and features like meal planning are missing. While the general tool set is extensive, it lacks critical recipe-related functionality, leaving significant gaps for the intended purpose.

Resources