Skip to main content
Glama

Scb Se

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. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / _apiKey
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional Anthropic API key (sk-ant-...) — only needed if \"anthropic\" is in models. Passed straight through to api.anthropic.com.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: a phrase locating the entity (e.g. \"Boston restaurant\", \"B2B SaaS\", \"Polish painter\"). Helps disambiguate common names."New value: +"Optional: a phrase locating the entity (e.g. \"Boston restaurant\", \"B2B SaaS\"). Helps disambiguate common names."
    • changedInput schema / properties / entity / description
      Previous value: -"The thing to ask about. Brand/business name, product name, person, or topic. E.g. \"Pipeworx\", \"OpenInvoice\", \"Acme Corp pricing\", \"the company behind ChatGPT\"."New value: +"The thing to ask about. Brand/business name, product name, person, or topic. E.g. \"Pipeworx\", \"OpenInvoice\", \"Acme Corp pricing\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / models
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which models to probe. Supported: \"workers-ai\" (free default), \"anthropic\" (requires _apiKey). Omit for just workers-ai.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already indicate safe, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: default model, cost implications of _apiKey, and return structure (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view). 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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value (action, default behavior, return format, use cases). No redundancy or filler.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior, parameter roles, return format, and use cases. It provides sufficient information for an AI agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning: explains the default model for 'models', clarifies that _apiKey is optional and passed through to Anthropic, and provides examples for 'entity' and 'context'. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states the action ('Probe one or more LLMs'), the resource ('what they know about a business / brand / product / topic'), and the output ('score visibility (0-100) per model'). It distinguishes from generic Q&A tools by focusing on visibility scoring, and the specific verb+resource combination differentiates it from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence'.

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 states use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains when to use the optional _apiKey parameter. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement or alternatives, but the use cases are clear enough to guide selection.

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

All Scb Se 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but several overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (only differing in verification/depth), and polymarket_edges / polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edge_tracker / polymarket_fill_risk / polymarket_kalshi_spread all target similar prediction-market signals, which could cause mis-selection without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (resolve_entity, query_table, remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe, validate_claim, compare_entities, search_within), but there are exceptions like ai_visibility_check (adjective_noun), generate_llms_txt (verb_noun with dot), and several polymarket_* names that are fine but inconsistent with the snake_case verb-first convention.

Tool Count5/5

35 tools is a large but reasonable surface for a broad data/serach platform covering company financials, economics, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and discovery. The count is justified by the wide domain, and the set is not bloated with trivial duplicates.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core CRUD for entities (resolve, profile, compare, search, query) and memory (remember/recall/forget), plus subscriptions and meta-tools. Minor gaps: no explicit tool for updating/creating entities (understandable for a read-only data service), and no tool for listing all available table schemas beyond discovery (subjects covers this). Overall strong coverage.

Resources