Skip to main content
Glama

Zoho_crm

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. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: cost implications ('you pay Anthropic directly'), BYO key handling, and the fact that it probes multiple models. This adds meaningful value without contradicting the 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, front-loaded with the core function, followed by configuration details and use cases. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 has no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return format. It covers purpose, usage context, defaults, and safety via annotations. It lacks explicit limitations or error conditions, but for a read-only, idempotent probe tool with well-documented parameters, this is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 does not add much parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only re-emphasizes the default model and API key behavior already covered in the schema. The main addition is the return structure, which relates more to output than parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: probing LLMs for what they know about an entity and scoring visibility. It uses a specific verb ('probe') and resource ('LLMs'), and specifies the output. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 context for when to use the tool ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains the default model configuration. However, it does not mention any exclusions, alternatives, or when not to use it, falling short of the explicit when/when-not guidance that would merit a 5.

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

All Zoho_crm 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The five Zoho CRM tools are well-differentiated, but the 31 Pipeworx/Polymarket tools create heavy overlap (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all serve similar lookup purposes). Mixing two unrelated domains makes it easy for an agent to select a tool from the wrong group.

Naming Consistency2/5

The Zoho tools share a consistent zoho_ prefix, but the remaining 31 tools follow no clear convention—ask_pipeworx, bet_research, deep_research, entity_profile, forget, scan_dependency, etc. mix noun-first, verb-first, and bare verb patterns without a unifying scheme.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well beyond what a Zoho CRM server needs, and only 5 actually relate to Zoho CRM. The bulk are for unrelated data sources, prediction markets, memory management, and web generation, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The Zoho CRM surface includes create, get, list, and search, but omits essential operations like update, delete, and upsert. The other 31 tools cover a completely different domain, so the server fails to provide complete lifecycle coverage for its stated purpose.

Resources