Skip to main content
Glama

Twitch

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable context: default model is free, Anthropic requires a user-provided key with direct payment, and the key is passed through without hidden costs. It also explains the return structure (per-model fields).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with the main purpose front-loaded. It uses four sentences covering purpose, default behavior, key handling, return format, and use cases. There is minimal redundancy, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by detailing return fields (score, confidence, signals, raw_response) and a combined view. It also addresses cost, authentication, and optional disambiguation, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, but the description enriches parameters beyond the schema: it explains why models array has 'anthropic' option, the _apiKey parameter's cost implications, and the context parameter's disambiguation role. This adds significant meaning for an AI agent.

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 an entity and scores visibility (0-100). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or entity_profile by focusing on AI visibility scoring, and it mentions specific use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lists use cases but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to alternatives like deep_research or entity_profile. The implied usage is clear, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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

All Twitch 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set includes many similar Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, ask_pipeworx_beta, deep_research) that all serve overlapping purposes, causing confusion. The Twitch-specific tools are distinct but are buried among many unrelated tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case (e.g., get_streams, ask_pipeworx), but there is variation in patterns: some are verb_ noun (get_streams), some are just verbs (remember), and some are adjective_noun (recent_changes). No strong pattern across the whole set.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the server is bloated for its stated purpose as a 'Twitch' server. Only about 4-5 tools are Twitch-related; the rest are from a data platform (Pipeworx) and generic utilities, making the count feel excessive and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For a Twitch server, the tool surface is severely incomplete. It lacks essential Twitch features like clips, follows, chat, or channel management. The few Twitch tools present cover only basic stream and user lookup.

Resources