Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Glasgow

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as probing each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranking by score, and surfacing most/least recognized entities. It also specifies the return fields (score, confidence, signal density). This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, making the tool's operation transparent.

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 and well-structured: three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then explain the process and use case. Each sentence adds meaningful information without 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?

For a multi-entity comparison tool, the description covers purpose, process (probing with ai_visibility_check), ranking behavior, and expected output fields. With full schema coverage and clear annotations, no critical information is missing for an agent to select and 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (models, _apiKey, context, entities) fully described in the schema itself. The description does not add parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It specifies the mechanism (probes each entity with ai_visibility_check), the ranking behavior, and the output (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single-entity) and compare_entities (generic comparison).

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 usage context: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' with a concrete example ('does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?'). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternatives, though the sibling tool list and the phrase 'side-by-side' imply when this tool is appropriate.

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

All Arcgis Glasgow 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently functionally identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all route to the same underlying catalog with only subtle differences. The Polymarket cluster (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also substantially overlaps in purpose, and the two unrelated domains (GIS vs. data/betting) make it worse.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are readable and form some predictable clusters (polymarket_* prefix, ask_pipeworx_* suffixes, subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions), but conventions are mixed: bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), noun_noun (layer_info, entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback), verb_noun (query_layer, search_datasets), and adjective_noun (deep_research, recent_alerts). No single pattern dominates, though nothing is chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold for a heavy surface, and the count is not justified by the server's stated identity: only 3 of 34 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) relate to ArcGIS Glasgow. The remaining 31 tools belong to several unrelated domains (Pipeworx data querying, Polymarket betting, AI visibility, memory, npm scanning), making the effective scope far too broad.

Completeness2/5

For the server's named ArcGIS Glasgow domain, the surface is thin: search, schema inspection, and query are present, but there is no way to list all datasets, no spatial querying, and no write/update capability. Meanwhile the 31 non-GIS tools create a sprawling second server's worth of functionality, so the set as a whole has no coherent domain whose coverage can be judged complete.

Resources