Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Kansas

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?

With annotations already declaring readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it internally calls ai_visibility_check multiple times, ranks results, and returns a specific structure (score, confidence, signal density). It does not discuss performance/cost implications, but with annotation coverage this is a strong score.

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 primary action, and each sentence serves a purpose: function, process, use case, and return format. There is no fluff or repetition of structured data.

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?

Given no output schema, the description still explains the return format ('ranked list with score, confidence, signal density'). It also clarifies it compares multiple entities and uses ai_visibility_check. It could mention edge cases or call costs, but for a read-only tool with good annotations, this is nearly complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema; it merely references the parameters without new details. The entities parameter's 'first entry as subject' nuance is already in the schema description, so no extra value is provided.

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 function: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side' and explains the process ('Probes each entity... with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score'). It distinguishes itself from the single-entity sibling ai_visibility_check and the generic compare_entities by focusing specifically on AI visibility comparison across competitors.

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 a concrete example question. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks the full 'when-not/alternatives' guidance required for a 5.

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

All Arcgis Kansas 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
Disambiguation1/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded all route questions; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker all deal with prediction market edges). The inclusion of memory tools (remember, recall, forget) alongside research tools further blurs boundaries.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use snake_case (ai_visibility_check), some use underscores with prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_arbitrage), and others are more generic (query_layer, layer_info). There is no consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the set is overly large for a geospatial server; most tools are unrelated to ArcGIS Kansas (e.g., prediction market tools, general research tools). Only 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) are pertinent, making the count excessive and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

The server claims to be an ArcGIS Kansas tool but provides only basic layer querying and dataset search. Missing essential GIS operations such as editing, spatial analysis, or advanced queries, making it severely incomplete for its stated purpose.

Resources