Skip to main content
Glama

Materials

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the default model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b), key requirement for Anthropic, and return structure (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response}). No contradictions 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?

Two sentences with clear front-loading: action, default behavior, optional key, response shape. No wasted words.

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 tool has 4 parameters (100% described), no output schema, but the description summarizes return structure (per-model + combined view). Though it lacks details on 'raw_response', annotations provide safety profile. Completeness is adequate for selection and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: clarifies default model for 'models', explains when '_apiKey' is needed, and gives examples for 'entity' and disambiguation for 'context'. This extra context justifies a higher score.

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 specific verbs ('probe', 'score') and resources ('LLMs', 'visibility'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'deep_research' or 'compare_entities'. It clearly identifies the tool's role in AI-marketing audits and brand checks.

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 states use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. However, the context of sibling tools implies alternatives, and the guidance is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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

All Materials 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While many tools have detailed descriptions that help differentiate them, there is significant overlap among query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research. The prediction market tools also cluster together, making it challenging for an agent to quickly pick the right one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a descriptive snake_case convention (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities). Minor deviations exist, such as 'ai_visibility_check' and 'deep_research', but overall the naming pattern is predictable and clear.

Tool Count3/5

With 33 tools, the server is larger than typical single-domain servers. While it supports a broad data platform, this count feels somewhat bloated and could benefit from consolidation, especially among overlapping query tools.

Completeness1/5

The server is named 'Materials' but contains only two materials-specific tools (materials_search, materials_stability). The remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains (finance, economics, prediction markets, etc.), leaving the stated domain severely incomplete.

Resources