Skip to main content
Glama

Trakt

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context: it probes multiple models, scores 0-100, defaults to Workers AI (free), and passes the API key to Anthropic only when needed. 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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundant or extraneous information. It is perfectly concise.

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's moderate complexity (probing multiple models, optional API key, scoring), the description covers all essential aspects: input parameters, default behavior, optional key, return structure (per-model fields and combined view). No output schema is provided, but the description sufficiently describes the outputs.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the default model is free and that '_apiKey' is required only when probing Anthropic. This provides context on usage that the schema alone does not.

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's purpose: 'Probe one or more LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic and score visibility (0-100) per model.' It specifies the default model and optional other model. The tool is clearly distinct from siblings like 'ask_pipeworx' or 'deep_research' which serve different functions.

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 usage context: 'Useful for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It explains the default model (free) and the need for an API key to probe Anthropic. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools.

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

All Trakt 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

The tool set has significant overlap among query and research tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research) and among entity/company tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes). Despite detailed descriptions, an agent would struggle to select the correct tool without careful reading, especially for nuanced differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool naming is inconsistent: some start with verbs (ask_, generate_, validate_, scan_, subscribe) while others are nouns (entity_profile, popular, trending, search, recent_alerts, recent_changes). The snake_case style is consistent, but the verb_noun pattern is not, making predictions of tool names difficult.

Tool Count3/5

38 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the scope is broad (general query, research, Trakt, subscriptions, memory). The count is appropriate for the wide range of functionality, though some tools could be merged to reduce cognitive load.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a very wide range of tasks: querying, research, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, Trakt operations, etc. For the Trakt domain, it has all essential operations (search, get, list, trending). The Pipeworx side has a comprehensive set for data access, grounding, and validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update for subscriptions), but overall it is well-covered.

Resources