Skip to main content
Glama

Interpro

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and description adds behavioral details: default model is free Workers AI, Anthropic requires BYO key with direct payment, and returns structured per-model results (score, confidence, signals, raw_response). No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by model option and use cases. No filler; formatting highlights key terms.

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 specifies the return structure and use cases, and given strong annotations plus full schema coverage, no significant gaps remain for selecting and invoking correctly.

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?

Schema already describes all 4 params, and description supplements with the default model selection, the meaning of `_apiKey` (BYO, direct billing), and clarifies `context` as disambiguation. This adds value beyond the schema, though schema was already strong.

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?

Clearly states the tool probes one or more LLMs and scores visibility 0-100, naming specific resource types (business/brand/product/topic) and outcome (per-model score). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx that answer questions, while the mention of AI visibility makes the purpose explicit.

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?

Provides concrete use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and explains the default model and optional Anthropic probing. Does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to know when to use it.

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

All Interpro 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

Several tool clusters have fuzzy boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all overlap on 'find and query data,' while the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research form a heavily overlapping prediction-market cluster. The three genuine InterPro tools are clear, but an agent would frequently struggle to pick the right meta-tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable snake_case verb-first pattern like compare_entities, resolve_entity, and validate_claim. However, bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), product-prefixed nouns (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending), and variant suffixes (ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) break the pattern enough to feel inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range, and many tools duplicate or partially overlap each other's functionality. The count is further inflated by unrelated domains—AI visibility, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, package auditing—bundled into a server nominally named 'Interpro.'

Completeness2/5

The InterPro subset (search_entries, get_entry, entries_for_protein) is minimal and lacks obvious protein/proteome-level operations, while the rest of the server covers so many unrelated domains that no single domain has clear end-to-end coverage. The Pipeworx query side is broad, but the overall surface feels like several incomplete toolsets merged rather than one complete product.

Resources