Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Eagan

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it reveals the probe mechanism (ai_visibility_check), the ranking logic, and what is returned (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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: definition, mechanism, use case, and return format. No fluff or 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, process, use case, and output format. Even though there is no output schema, it explicitly states what is returned. Given the annotations and full schema, this description is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does provide overall context that helps interpret the entities parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare AI visibility') and resource ('multiple entities side-by-side'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic comparison). It also explicitly names the sub-tool ai_visibility_check and the ranking behavior, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 ('competitive AI-marketing audits') with an illustrative question, and implies the alternative (ai_visibility_check for single entities) by emphasizing 'multiple entities'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

All Arcgis Eagan 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

Several tool groups overlap heavily: the three ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) differ mainly in guarantees, and six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) all target the same trading-concept space with fuzzy boundaries. While ArcGIS, memory, and subscription tools are distinct, an agent will frequently struggle to pick the right research or analysis tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names are snake_case, but the structural pattern is inconsistent. Some are verb-first (query_layer, search_datasets, validate_claim), others are noun-first or domain-prefixed (entity_profile, layer_info, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts, pipeworx_feedback). There is no predictable verb_noun convention across the set, making it hard to guess a tool's name from its function.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set is well above the typical focused-server range, and the server name 'Arcgis Eagan' suggests a narrow GIS purpose while only 3–4 tools are actually ArcGIS-related. The remaining ~30 tools form a broad, unrelated utility collection (Pipeworx data, memory, subscriptions, trending, npm scanning), making the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the primary ArcGIS domain, only search, layer inspection, and querying are supported — there are no create, update, delete, or editing tools, leaving obvious lifecycle gaps. Meanwhile, the Pipeworx side is over-stocked with redundant analysis tools, and the overall mix lacks a coherent coverage story for any single stated purpose.

Resources