Skip to main content
Glama

Adzuna

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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds value by explaining the process (calls 'ai_visibility_check' internally) and the output structure (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or overly verbose phrasing. It is optimally concise for the complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple probes, ranking, no output schema), the description covers the process, use case, output structure, and even provides an example. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and use 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema: 'First entry treated as the subject for narrative; rest are competitors.' It also clarifies the models and _apiKey parameters succinctly, providing narrative that aids parameter selection.

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 a specific verb ('Compare', 'probes', 'ranks', 'surfaces') and resource ('AI visibility across multiple entities'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ai_visibility_check' (single entity) and 'compare_entities' (generic) by specifying the side-by-side competitive ranking use case.

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 provides explicit context: 'useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and a concrete example question. It implies when to use (multiple entities comparison) but does not explicitly state when not to use it, though the purpose is clear enough to infer alternatives.

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

All Adzuna 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly distinct, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research overlap with the base router, and the polymarket_* family contains several scanning/arbitrage tools with fuzzy boundaries. The long descriptions help, but an agent could easily call the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are coherent clusters (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, bare Adzuna verbs), but the overall server mixes snake_case, bare nouns, compound names, and -_prefixed names without a unifying convention. Some tools like compare_entities, entity_profile, and scan_dependency follow a descriptive style that does not match the verb_ noun pattern used elsewhere.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold, and the server named 'Adzuna' includes far more than job-search functionality: prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency checks, AI visibility probes, and llms.txt generation. The count feels like a bundled mega-platform rather than a focused job-data server.

Completeness3/5

For a job-search-focused server, the Adzuna tools cover search, categories, history, regional stats, salary histograms, and top companies, but there is no direct job-detail or application workflow. For the broader Pipeworx research surface, coverage is very thorough, so the main completeness problem is the lack of a clear unified domain rather than a specific missing operation.

Resources