Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Delawareco

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the tool probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a list with score, confidence, and signal density—behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints. It clarifies the composite nature without contradicting 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the mechanism, use case, and return value. Every sentence adds unique value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity (multi-entity comparison, optional models/API key), the description covers the essential what, how, when, and expected output. The rich schema covers parameter details, and annotations cover safety, so no critical context is missing.

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% for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'your brand + N competitors' for entities), but this is also present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic) by specifying the mechanism 'Probes each entity ... with ai_visibility_check' and the ranking behavior.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' with a concrete example question. It implies when to use this tool versus ai_visibility_check for a single entity, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools for comprehensive coverage.

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

All Arcgis Delawareco 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping or redundant purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical in routing, and several polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) all surface trading opportunities with similar outputs. The three ArcGIS tools are distinct but buried among dozens of unrelated data/meta tools, making selection confusing.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, which is consistent, but the verb/noun pattern is inconsistent. Some are verb_noun (query_layer, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts), and some are bare verbs (recall, remember, forget, subscribe). The naming style is readable but not predictably patterned.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is already high, but the severe issue is that only 3 of them (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) relate to the server's stated ArcGIS Delaware County purpose. The other 31 are Pipeworx data, memory, subscription, and prediction-market tools, which is a blatant scope mismatch. The tool count is not appropriate for the advertised server domain.

Completeness1/5

For an ArcGIS Delaware County GIS server, the surface is extremely thin: only search, query, and layer metadata exist. There are no tools for editing features, uploading data, managing layers, or exporting maps. Conversely, the Pipeworx tools form a broad but fragmented domain with many monitoring and meta-tools but no clear end-to-end workflow. The set is severely incomplete for its apparent dual purpose.

Resources