Skip to main content
Glama

Vies Eu

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals the default free model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b), explains that passing `_apiKey` incurs direct charges via Anthropic, and previews the return shape. Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, and the description does not contradict them.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, configuration/cost, return format, and use cases. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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?

The description fully orients an agent: it explains what the tool does, which models are available, cost behavior, return structure, and common use cases. With no output schema, it still communicates the return shape (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view). Minor gap: no explicit 'when not to use' comparison, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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 marginal but useful details: the exact default model name and the cost implication of `_apiKey` ('you pay Anthropic directly for those calls'). This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Probe one or more LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic and score visibility (0-100) per model.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on per-model visibility scoring for any entity, not just competitors.

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 lists use cases: 'Useful for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion/alternative guidance.

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

All Vies Eu 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

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical to the stable router right now), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route the same class of questions, making mis-selection easy. The six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also blur together around edge detection and arbitrage, further muddying tool boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

All 33 tools use consistent lowercase snake_case naming, and most follow a clear verb_noun pattern (check_vat, compare_entities, resolve_entity, unsubscribe). A handful of noun-style names (entity_profile, bet_research, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts) deviate from the verb-first pattern but are still predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is beyond the 25+ threshold for a coherent set, and the scope is sprawling: universal data routing, prediction-market analytics, VAT validation, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency scanning, and feedback. While each sub-domain has reason to exist, bundling them all into one server creates a kitchen-sink feel with too many entry points.

Completeness3/5

The core data-routing domain is well covered: universal router, grounded mode, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim validation, and search-within. VAT has check + status, and memory/subscription lifecycles are complete. However, there is no standalone tool to fetch a raw pipeworx:// record that citations reference, and the extreme breadth means no single domain is exhaustively fleshed out.

Resources