Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Peterborough

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it probes each entity by calling ai_visibility_check, ranks results, and returns score/confidence/signal density. This goes beyond what annotations reveal.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second explains the mechanism and use case, and the third describes the return format. No redundant or vague language; every sentence carries useful information.

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?

The description covers the return shape (ranked list with score/confidence/signal density) and the primary use case. It doesn't mention potential multi-probe latency or partial failure behavior, but given the schema covers parameter constraints and annotations cover safety, this is adequately complete for an AI agent to decide on usage.

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% with each parameter well-described (e.g., entities includes 'First entry treated as the subject' and models lists supported values). The description adds the notion of "your brand + N competitors" which aligns with the entity schema but doesn't add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond that. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: "Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side." It specifies the action (compare), the resource (AI visibility), and the outcome (ranks by score, surfaces most/least recognized). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool ai_visibility_check, which is for single-entity checks.

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?

Provides a clear use case ("competitive AI-marketing audits") and an example query ("does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?"). However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this over alternatives like ai_visibility_check or compare_entities, though mentioning ai_visibility_check as the underlying probe gives some implicit contrast.

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

All Arcgis Peterborough 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

Multiple tool families overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to the same underlying 5,767 tools with significant functional overlap. Polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) also have blurred boundaries around edge detection and fill risk. The ArcGIS tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) are distinct, but the non-ArcGIS tools dominate and create confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

The naming conventions are inconsistent across the set. Some tools use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, query_layer, search_datasets, list_subscriptions), some use bare verbs (forget, recall, subscribe, unsubscribe), and others use descriptive multi-word names (polymarket_fill_risk, scan_competitor_ai_presence, generate_llms_txt). The ask_pipeworx family and polymarket_* family are internally consistent, but the overall set mixes styles without a clear pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a server that appears to be an ArcGIS data server but includes a massive Pipeworx data-research and prediction-market subsystem. The ArcGIS portion only has 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer), while the rest form a separate general-purpose research/betting toolkit. The count feels bloated and unfocused relative to the server's stated name.

Completeness2/5

The ArcGIS surface is incomplete: search_datasets, layer_info, and query_layer offer no update/create/delete or metadata exploration beyond one layer at a time. The Pipeworx portion is broad but lacks clear lifecycle coverage for subscriptions (create/cancel works, but no update), and the memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are peripheral. The set feels like an accidental aggregation of unrelated domains rather than a complete surface for one purpose.

Resources