Skip to main content
Glama

Abn Lookup

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Scan Competitor AI Presence

scan_competitor_ai_presence
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side. Probes each entity (your brand + N competitors) with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces which is most/least recognized. Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits: "does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?". Returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelsNoWhich models to probe. Supported: "workers-ai" (free default), "anthropic" (requires _apiKey). Omit for just workers-ai.
_apiKeyNoOptional Anthropic API key — only if "anthropic" is in models. Passed to api.anthropic.com per probe.
contextNoOptional shared context applied to every probe (e.g. "B2B SaaS", "Boston restaurant"). Disambiguates common names.
entitiesYesArray of 2-8 entities to compare (brand/business/product names). First entry treated as the "subject" for narrative; rest are competitors.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior; the description adds process detail: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces most/least recognized, and returns score, confidence, and signal density. No contradictions or hidden side effects.

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 tight sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. The quoted use-case example adds clarity without padding, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers what the tool does, how it works, when to use it, and what it returns, which is especially useful given there is no output schema. It could additionally reference model selection or API key handling, but those are already fully documented in the input schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description reinforces the entities concept as 'your brand + N competitors' but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema's own documentation.

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?

States a specific action ('Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side'), identifies the probe mechanism (ai_visibility_check), and describes the ranking output. This clearly distinguishes it from single-entity tools like ai_visibility_check and generic compare_entities.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an illustrative question that makes the intended scenario vivid. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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

All Abn Lookup 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear or overlapping boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, while ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and validate_claim all handle factual lookup/research tasks. The five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research also overlap enough that an agent could easily pick the wrong entry point despite verbose descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and generally descriptive, but conventions are mixed: some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim), some are noun-first (abn_lookup, entity_profile, polymarket_edges), and prefixes like pipeworx_ and polymarket_ are used inconsistently. It is readable but not a clean, predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far too many for a server named 'Abn Lookup' — most of the surface is a broad data-research platform with prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and web utilities. The count could fit a large platform, but under this server name and with several near-duplicate entry points, it feels bloated.

Completeness4/5

For a read-only lookup/research server, coverage is strong: ABR lookups, entity resolution, single-query research, grounded verification, deep research, company profiles, comparisons, change feeds, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions are all represented. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no ACN search-by-name, no order execution), but no core workflow dead-ends.

Resources