Skip to main content
Glama

Ted Eu

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the free default model, that `_apiKey` triggers direct billing to Anthropic, and the return structure. 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?

The description is efficiently written: front-loaded with the main action, then parameter details, then use cases. Every sentence adds value 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?

All 4 parameters are clearly explained. Despite no output schema, the description specifies the return format (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response + combined view). The tool's complexity is well covered.

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 context beyond schema: it explains the default model behavior, when `_apiKey` is required, and how `context` aids disambiguation.

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 function: probing LLMs for business/brand visibility and scoring it. It specifies the default model and differentiates from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or deep_research by focusing on multi-model visibility 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 lists concrete use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and explains optional parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives.

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

All Ted Eu 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose described in detail. Even tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are differentiated by hallucination resistance, account requirements, and use cases. Polymarket tools are each specialized (arbitrage, edges, fill risk, etc.). No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow snake_case consistently. They use descriptive verb-noun patterns (e.g., ask_pipeworx, bet_research, compare_entities, subscribe). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous names.

Tool Count4/5

32 tools is on the higher side but justified by the server's broad scope covering company research, prediction markets, data lookups, memory, subscriptions, and more. Each tool serves a distinct function, though the count might feel slightly heavy for a single server.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers core workflows for company analysis, prediction market operations, data retrieval, and system management (memory, subscriptions). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for non-company entity profiles beyond drugs), but the overall surface is comprehensive for the intended multi-purpose assistant.

Resources