Skip to main content
Glama

Sarb Za

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds important behavioral context: return format (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view), cost model (free for Workers AI, pay for Anthropic), and the fact that Anthropic requires a separate API key. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph of four sentences. It front-loads the main action and output, then covers key details (default model, optional Anthropic, return format, use cases). No wasted words.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns (per-model details + combined view), usage contexts, and parameter nuances (default model, optional API key, disambiguation with context). No gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described. The description adds some value by explaining the default model for 'models' parameter and clarifying that '_apiKey' is passed through to Anthropic. However, since the schema already covers parameter meanings, the description's additional contribution is marginal.

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 like 'probe' and 'score visibility (0-100) per model', clearly identifying the resource as LLMs and the output as visibility scores. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on AI visibility auditing, which is unique among tools like 'ask_pipeworx' or 'deep_research'.

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 context for when to use the tool (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and explains the default model and optional Anthropic model with BYO key. However, it does not explicitly compare to similar sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Sarb Za 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 tools have overlapping or redundant purposes, most notably ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and the cluster of Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research) which all surface trading opportunities. While the lengthy descriptions help, an agent could easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case with a readable verb/noun structure, and there are no casing inconsistencies. However, the verb-first vs noun-first pattern is not uniformly applied (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs sarb_timeseries vs polymarket_edge_tracker), so it's mostly consistent with minor deviations.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, the set is large and exceeds the 25-tool threshold; the broad scope justifies some volume but the presence of duplicate/overlapping tools (ask_pipeworx_beta, multiple Polymarket scanners) makes the count feel inflated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers a wide domain — SARB data, company research, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, and subscriptions — with a good lifecycle for most features. Minor gaps exist (no subscription update, no bulk data export), but the core workflows are well covered.

Resources