Skip to main content
Glama

Securitytrails

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 indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds specific behavioral details: probing LLMs, per-model response format, cost implication for Anthropic calls, and default model. No contradictions. Missing details on error handling or rate limits, but transparency is above average.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main action and output. Every sentence adds value: action, default, optional key, return structure, use cases. No redundancy or fluff.

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, the description covers the return format (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response + combined view) and key behavioral aspects like free default and BYO key. It does not detail error scenarios or calculation methodology, but is sufficient for invocation.

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 value by specifying default model for 'models', cost context for '_apiKey', and usage context for 'entity' and 'context'. This extra guidance raises the score above minimum.

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 tool probes LLMs for AI visibility and scores it 0-100 per model. It specifies the default model and optional Anthropic integration, with return structure. While siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence exist, the purpose is self-contained and distinct.

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 gives explicit use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains when to use the optional _apiKey. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare to siblings, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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

All Securitytrails 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools occupy the same general query/research space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, entity_profile, and recent_changes all overlap in what they can return. The descriptions are detailed and try to steer usage, but the boundaries are fuzzy enough that agents can easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and descriptive, but there is no consistent verb_noun convention across the set. It mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), domain-prefixed families (securitytrails_*, polymarket_*), and Pipeworx meta-tools (ask_pipeworx_*), so the pattern is predictable only within each family.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the 25+ threshold for a coherent MCP surface, and many are highly specialized (Polymarket arbitrage, AI visibility checks, npm dependency scans) rather than core Securitytrails functionality. The set feels like multiple products merged into one rather than a well-scoped toolset.

Completeness3/5

The broad data-research workflows are well covered: routing, entity resolution, profiling, comparison, validation, subscriptions, memory, and basic Securitytrails domain lookups. But for a server named Securitytrails, there are obvious missing security-intelligence operations such as associated domains, IP/certificate enrichment, and broader DNS infrastructure enumeration.

Resources