Skip to main content
Glama

Stripe_connect

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. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by explaining that Workers AI is free while Anthropic requires a BYO key and direct payment, that the default model is Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b, and that it returns scores per model. This context is beyond annotations, though rate limits or error handling are not discussed.

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 efficient paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then smoothly covers parameters and use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must describe return values. It does so adequately ('per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view'). For a probe tool with moderate complexity, this is complete enough, though it could clarify how confidence is derived.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by clarifying the default model, how _apiKey is used (passed to Anthropic), and that context helps disambiguate. It effectively supplements 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 clearly states the tool probes LLMs for knowledge about a business/entity and returns a visibility score (0-100) per model. It specifies what is returned (per-model and combined view). This distinguishes it from siblings like entity_profile or scan_competitor_ai_presence, which have different scopes.

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 use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains parameter behavior (default model, need for _apiKey for Anthropic). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to sibling alternatives like entity_profile.

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

All Stripe_connect 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set has several near-duplicate entry points: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, while ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research and bet_research/polymarket_edges overlap heavily. Verbose descriptions help in isolation, but an agent must choose between many similar-looking research and prediction-market tools before it can act.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), prefixed families (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, stripe_*), and descriptive noun-style names (entity_profile, validate_claim) with no single verb_noun pattern. Each cluster is internally consistent, but the overall set is unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a server named Stripe_connect, especially since only 6 tools are actually Stripe-related and the rest are a sprawling Pipeworx data-research and prediction-market stack. The count would be heavy even for the broad research domain, and it is a serious scope mismatch for the stated name.

Completeness1/5

For the Stripe domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: it is read-only (get/list) with no way to create customers, take payments, issue refunds, update invoices, or manage subscription lifecycles. The non-Stripe research tools are broad, but that does not fill the payment workflow gap.

Resources