Skip to main content
Glama

Va Museum

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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: default model (free Workers AI), BYO key for Anthropic (cost implication), and the per-model return structure including {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} plus combined view. No contradiction 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 core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines action and output, second explains default vs paid model, third lists return structure and use cases. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple models, optional API key, scoring), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects, model choice implications, and return format. Without an output schema, it adequately describes the per-model and combined result. The only missing detail is the scoring algorithm's basis, but that is acceptable for a tool description.

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 schema already documents all 4 parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema: default model selection, that _apiKey only needed for Anthropic, that context helps disambiguate. This extra detail helps the agent understand parameter interaction.

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 specific verbs (probe, score) and clearly states the resource (LLM visibility for a business/brand/product/topic). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only tool focused on AI visibility scoring, with a clear scope of auditing and monitoring.

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), providing clear context for when to invoke. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the use cases are well-defined and distinct from sibling tools.

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

All Va Museum 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded (same underlying data query, different answer modes), and multiple polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) can confuse agents about which to use for a given betting query. Memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are clear, but the mix of museum, financial, and prediction market tools under one server increases ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently, but the naming pattern is inconsistent: some start with a verb (search_objects, list_subscriptions, remember) while others start with a noun or modifier (ai_visibility_check, entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage). The 'ask_' prefix is used twice, but overall there is no single predictable convention like verb_noun across the set.

Tool Count3/5

29 tools is high but not excessive for a general-purpose data server. However, the server is named 'Va Museum' which implies a narrow domain, making the count seem bloated. The set includes many tools unrelated to a museum (e.g., prediction markets, SEC filings), so the count is appropriate only if the server's actual scope is broad and multi-domain.

Completeness2/5

For a museum-focused server, the tool surface is severely incomplete, with only two museum-specific tools (search_objects, get_object) out of 29. Even as a general-purpose server, it lacks tools for common operations like updating or deleting resources, and the coverage of domains (e.g., no tool for creating or managing user data) feels ad hoc rather than systematically complete.

Resources