Skip to main content
Glama

Remoteok

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable context: explains pricing (free default vs. BYO key for Anthropic) and return structure (per-model fields). It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but overall provides good transparency.

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 with 4 sentences, each adding essential information: action and score range, default model and apiKey note, return structure, and use cases. No redundant or wasted words.

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, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description provides sufficient detail: mentions return fields (score, confidence, signals, raw_response) and the combined view. It does not cover error scenarios or pagination but is complete for typical use.

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 beyond schema by giving examples (e.g., entity examples, context usage) and explaining the _apiKey parameter's role ('passed straight through to api.anthropic.com') and conditionality.

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') and resources ('LLMs', 'visibility') to clearly define the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or deep_research by focusing on AI brand visibility scoring.

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 clear use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains when to use the optional apiKey. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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

All Remoteok 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

Several tool clusters have fuzzy boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions through the same routing layer, while polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and bet_research all address prediction-market edges. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent can easily select the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern (list_jobs, search_jobs, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but there are numerous noun-first and adjective-first exceptions (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage) plus bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe). The pattern is readable but not consistently applied.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the well-scoped range, and the vast majority are not about the server's RemoteOK namesake. The set appears to merge several distinct domains (Pipeworx data research, Polymarket betting, RemoteOK jobs, memory utilities) into one oversized surface, making it feel more like a bundled platform than a focused server.

Completeness4/5

For the dominant Pipeworx/data-research theme, coverage is strong: question answering, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, discovery, memory, subscriptions, and citation-based research are all present. The RemoteOK job subset covers list/search/get without obvious dead ends. Minor gaps exist (no direct citation-URI fetcher, no job alert subscriptions), but agents can work around them.

Resources