Skip to main content
Glama

Epa Echo

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: default model is free, BYO key for Anthropic, pricing model, and that probing calls external APIs. This goes beyond 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 two sentences long, front-loads the action and output, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently covers purpose, output structure, model details, and use cases without redundancy.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, yet the description explains the output structure ('per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view'), scoring range, and key parameter constraints. It is fully complete for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to invoke it.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains the 'entity' parameter's purpose, lists supported models for 'models', details the '_apiKey' format and purpose, and describes how 'context' disambiguates. This greatly aids correct parameter usage.

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's purpose: probing LLMs for brand visibility and scoring 0-100 per model. It uses a specific verb ('probe') and resource ('one or more LLMs'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by emphasizing multi-model probing and scoring.

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 explicit use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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

All Epa Echo 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded form a tight cluster, and the beta variant is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today. Several meta-tools like discover_tools, suggest_questions, and deep_research also overlap in discovery-oriented usage, so an agent must read carefully to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly lowercase with underscores and mostly descriptive, but the conventions are mixed: verb_noun tools like validate_claim and list_subscriptions sit alongside noun_phrase tools like entity_profile and polymarket_arbitrage, plus bare verbs like remember and subscribe. It is readable but not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the 25+ threshold, and the surface spans unrelated domains: EPA ECHO data, general Pipeworx research, Polymarket betting, memory, npm scanning, and AI visibility checks. For a server named 'Epa Echo', most tools feel out of scope and the collection seems like several separate servers merged together.

Completeness4/5

The EPA ECHO subset provides a solid facility-search, violations, compliance-history, and enforcement-action lifecycle. The broader Pipeworx surface also covers lookups, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiling, subscriptions, and memory, with only minor workaround-level gaps such as no dedicated ECHO permit/emissions detail tool.

Resources