Skip to main content
Glama

Solscan

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: the return structure (per-model scores, confidence, signals, raw_response), the free vs. paid model (BYO key), and that Anthropic calls incur costs. No contradictions 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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action and result. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. Structure flows logically from action to output to use cases.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return shape (per-model + combined view). Parameters are well covered. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling or limits (e.g., if a model fails), but overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial value beyond the schema: it identifies the default model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b, free), explains that the _apiKey is required only for Anthropic, and clarifies that context helps disambiguate. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 for what they know about a business/brand/product/topic'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on general AI visibility scoring for any entity.

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. It also clarifies default model and the need for an API key for Anthropic. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare with directly similar siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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

All Solscan 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and multiple prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) overlap in purpose. The Solana-specific tools are distinct, but the large non-Solana cluster creates real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use snake_case, but naming styles vary widely: get_/list_ verbs, ask_pipeworx family, polymarket_* cluster, and descriptive noun-style names like entity_profile, validate_claim, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency. There is no single consistent verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count1/5

With 36 tools, the count is high, but the critical problem is scope mismatch: a server named Solscan has only 5 Solana-related tools, while 31 are unrelated data/research/prediction-market utilities. This makes the tool count inappropriate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

As a Solana explorer, the set covers only account details, token holdings, token metadata, transactions, and transfers; major gaps include blocks, token price/history, NFTs, programs/staking, and more comprehensive transfer history. For the broader data-research theme, coverage is broad but scattered and lacks a single coherent domain.

Resources