Skip to main content
Glama

Greynoise

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the default model (free), the need for an API key to access Anthropic (with cost implication), and the return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response, plus combined view). This fully aligns with the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, not destructive) and provides extra transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, usage, parameters, and returns. It is front-loaded with the main action. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), it is concise and each sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the purpose, parameters, return format, and use cases. Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately includes the return structure. It is complete for the tool's complexity, though it could mention error handling or rate limits if applicable.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by clarifying the default model, explaining when `_apiKey` is needed, and providing examples for the `entity` parameter. This goes beyond the schema 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 clearly states the tool probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scores visibility 0-100. It specifies the action (probe, score) and resource (LLMs), and differentiates by mentioning specific use cases like AI-marketing audits, brand checks, and competitive monitoring, which are distinct from sibling 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 provides clear contexts for use: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. It also explains when to provide the Anthropic API key. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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

All Greynoise 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, creating a true duplicate entry point, and the prediction-market cluster (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_kalshi_spread) all detect mispricings with heavily overlapping descriptions. The detailed docs help, but an agent choosing among these will frequently misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mixes verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools, subscribe) with noun-first names (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, ip_context, recent_changes) and bare verbs (remember, forget) without a unifying convention. Subfamilies are internally consistent (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, subscribe/unsubscribe), which keeps it readable, but there is no predictable server-wide pattern.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well into the too-many band, and several tools duplicate or wrap others: ask_pipeworx_beta is a redundant copy of ask_pipeworx, scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check, and bet_research overlaps polymarket_edges/arbitrage. The broad scope justifies a large set, but it would be tighter and clearer around 20-24 tools.

Completeness4/5

For the domain the descriptions actually define (structured-data research, company intelligence, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory), coverage is strong with few dead ends: subscription and memory lifecycles are complete, and research has routing/grounded/deep modes. However, the server is named Greynoise while only ip_context serves that domain, and side tools like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency sit outside any core workflow.

Resources