Skip to main content
Glama

Virustotal

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. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / _apiKey
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional Anthropic API key (sk-ant-...) — only needed if \"anthropic\" is in models. Passed straight through to api.anthropic.com.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: a phrase locating the entity (e.g. \"Boston restaurant\", \"B2B SaaS\", \"Polish painter\"). Helps disambiguate common names."New value: +"Optional: a phrase locating the entity (e.g. \"Boston restaurant\", \"B2B SaaS\"). Helps disambiguate common names."
    • changedInput schema / properties / entity / description
      Previous value: -"The thing to ask about. Brand/business name, product name, person, or topic. E.g. \"Pipeworx\", \"OpenInvoice\", \"Acme Corp pricing\", \"the company behind ChatGPT\"."New value: +"The thing to ask about. Brand/business name, product name, person, or topic. E.g. \"Pipeworx\", \"OpenInvoice\", \"Acme Corp pricing\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / models
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which models to probe. Supported: \"workers-ai\" (free default), \"anthropic\" (requires _apiKey). Omit for just workers-ai.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
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 value by detailing return format (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view) and explaining billing implications for Anthropic probes. It does not cover rate limits or potential latency, but these are secondary.

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 compact (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return format clearly. With 100% parameter coverage and comprehensive annotations, the description provides all necessary context for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description enriches each parameter: entity is described with examples, models lists supported values with defaults, _apiKey explains its pass-through nature and requirement, context adds disambiguation purpose. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 verb 'probe' and resource 'LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic' and clearly states it scores visibility per model. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on direct LLM probing rather than scanning.

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: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring' and explains when to pass _apiKey for Anthropic. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

All Virustotal 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set mixes several overlapping families: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, and validate_claim all route to the same underlying data sources. Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, spread) also blur together; only the four lookup_* VirusTotal functions are cleanly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case with a few consistent families (lookup_domain/file/ip/url, ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), which helps. However, the set mixes imperative verbs (remember, forget, subscribe, validate_claim), noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, recent_alerts), and inconsistent prefixes, so no single naming convention holds across the server.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for the apparent purpose, especially for a server named Virustotal. The bulk of the tools address unrelated Pipeworx research, memory, and prediction-market functions, so the count does not reflect the server's advertised domain.

Completeness1/5

For a VirusTotal server, only four lookup tools exist and there is no way to submit a URL/file, create a scan, retrieve analysis details, or explore relationships—core VirusTotal operations are missing. Scoped broadly, the unrelated Pipeworx tools are extensive, but they do not fill the gaps in the advertised domain. The surface is severely incomplete relative to the server name.

Resources