Skip to main content
Glama

Google_analytics

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the free default model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b), that passing _apiKey for Anthropic involves direct costs to the user, and the return structure (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view). This is especially helpful given there is no output schema.

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 and outcome. The second sentence covers model selection and cost implications, and the third provides return format and use cases. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters (1 required), good annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter behavior, return format, cost implications, and use cases. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit return structure described. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent correct selection or invocation.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the default model (free) and the _apiKey behavior (BYO key, direct Anthropic billing), which clarifies the models parameter and the _apiKey's purpose more fully than the schema descriptions alone.

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 a specific verb 'Probe' and clearly identifies the resource as 'one or more LLMs' for scoring visibility of a business/brand/product/topic. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on per-model visibility scores (0-100) with confidence and signals, which is a unique function compared to ask/search tools.

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 ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains the default model behavior and how to enable Anthropic with a _apiKey. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough 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 Google_analytics 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research both route queries to the same 5,529 tools, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates. Only the small ga_* subset is clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency2/5

Conventions are mixed: GA tools use a ga_ prefix, but the majority use arbitrary names like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, remember, scan_dependency, and polymarket_arbitrage. No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy, and the vast majority (31) are unrelated Pipeworx utilities rather than Google Analytics functionality. Only 4 tools actually serve the stated GA purpose, making the count inappropriate for the server name.

Completeness2/5

For Google Analytics, the surface is minimal: list properties, metadata, realtime, and run report—no property management, user management, or data mutation. As a Pipeworx toolkit it's broad but lacks full lifecycle coverage for any single domain.

Resources