Skip to main content
Glama

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral details: default model is free, BYO key for Anthropic (cost implications), and return structure. It does not contradict 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 concise, consisting of three sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, default behavior, and return values. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

The description covers input (entity, models, optional fields), output (per-model object with score, confidence, signals, raw_response, combined view), and use cases. No output schema exists, so the description adequately explains return values.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default model and the optional API key for Anthropic, which is beyond the schema descriptions. It also clarifies the purpose of the context parameter.

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 provides a specific verb-resource combination: 'Probe one or more LLMs' and 'score visibility'. It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning use cases like AI-marketing audits and brand checks, which are not covered by other 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 gives explicit use contexts: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools for similar tasks, though the sibling list provides potential alternatives.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as functionally identical, and six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, polymarket_edge_tracker) overlap heavily in discovery, edge, and arbitrage roles. Company-research tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes) also blur boundaries, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use lowercase snake_case with underscores, which is a consistent base convention. However, the lexical pattern varies: bare single words (current, forecast, remember, forget) coexist with verb_noun compounds (resolve_entity, validate_claim) and noun compounds (entity_profile, polymarket_edges). The lack of a uniform verb_noun structure makes the set less predictable, though still readable.

Tool Count1/5

35 tools is well into the 'too many' range, and the server's name promises weather while only 4 of 35 tools (current, forecast, astronomy, marine) are weather-related — an extreme mismatch between the declared purpose and the actual surface. The remaining 31 tools form a general data/prediction-market platform that would be better served under a different server name.

Completeness4/5

Judged by its actual (non-weather) domain, the set is quite complete: generic routed lookup, grounded answer mode, deep research, entity resolution/profile/comparison, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, discovery, and feedback are all present. The weather subset covers current conditions, forecasts, marine, and astronomy, though it lacks historical weather and alert endpoints — a minor gap.