Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Maricopa

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 the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it probes each entity, ranks results by score, treats the first entity as the narrative subject, and returns score, confidence, and 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 three sentences with a clear structure: purpose in the first sentence, mechanism in the second, and use case plus output in the third. There is no fluff or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with four parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description covers the operational flow (probes, ranks, surfaces), the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density), and a realistic example. It is fully actionable and differentiates from sibling tools.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), including the nuance that the first entity is the 'subject'. The description only reiterates this aspect without adding new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 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 opens with a clear action ('Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side') and specifies the resource (entities) and mechanism (probes with ai_visibility_check and ranks by score). It distinguishes itself from the sibling ai_visibility_check by focusing on multi-entity comparison and ranked output.

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 gives a concrete use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') with an example query, making it clear when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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

All Arcgis Maricopa 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap within the Pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded) and Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, etc.). Descriptions are detailed and help differentiate, but the sheer number of tools from different domains can cause an agent to select the wrong one for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: some tools follow verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), others are nouns (layer_info, entity_profile), and some have prefixes (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage). There is no uniform pattern, making the set feel chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is far too many for a server named 'Arcgis Maricopa', which only has 3 GIS-specific tools. The remaining tools are from unrelated domains (polymarket betting, general Pipeworx queries, utilities), making the tool set bloated and unfocused for its stated purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the ArcGIS domain, the set is minimal (only search, schema, and query) and lacks management or analysis tools. However, the broader toolset covers many data domains (finance, drugs, prediction markets), but with gaps like no update/delete operations for the GIS data. The overall coverage is mixed.

Resources