Skip to main content
Glama

Salesforce

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?

Description aligns with annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and adds context: explains that probing is read-only, cost implications for Anthropic (BYO key), and the structure of returned data (per-model results + combined view).

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 pack all essential information: purpose, default behavior, optional parameter usage, and return structure. No redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (per-model objects with score, confidence, signals, raw_response plus combined view). Covers all parameters and use cases. Lacks mention of rate limits or pagination, but not critical for this tool.

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% with good descriptions. The description further enriches by explaining the default model, the purpose of _apiKey (BYO key for Anthropic), and how context helps disambiguate entities. This adds meaning beyond 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 'LLMs', clearly states the outcome 'score visibility (0-100) per model', and distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on multi-model probing and 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?

Explicitly mentions use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and provides guidance on default vs. additional model usage with API key. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparison to similar sibling tools.

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

All Salesforce 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set mixes Salesforce CRUD tools with a large Pipeworx research and prediction-market platform, and several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical, grounded/validate_claim/deep_research cover similar lookup/verification territory, and the six polymarket/bet tools share edge-finding purposes with only subtle distinctions. An agent would need to read long descriptions carefully to pick the right one, so misselection risk is high.

Naming Consistency3/5

Salesforce tools follow a clear sf_verb_noun pattern, and the Pipeworx tools mostly use lowercase snake_case phrase names, but the conventions diverge: ask_pipeworx has no underscore, deep_research/entity_profile are noun phrases rather than verb-first, and the sf_* prefix is a separate naming family. It is still readable, but it is not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

39 tools is well past the heavy threshold, and most belong to a broad data/research platform rather than the Salesforce scope implied by the server name; only 8 tools are actually Salesforce CRUD/query operations. The count feels bloated for a coherent assistant, even if individual features are useful.

Completeness4/5

The Salesforce subset is complete: create/get/update/delete/query/search/describe/list-object cover the record lifecycle with no dead ends. The broader Pipeworx ecosystem also has strong coverage, including routing, grounded verification, research, entity resolution, memory, and subscriptions, with only minor gaps such as no direct citation-fetch tool and no Salesforce upsert/bulk operations.

Resources