Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Roanoke

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=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral detail: it 'Probes each entity with ai_visibility_check', 'ranks by score', and 'Returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity.' This goes beyond the annotations and gives clear expectations, with no contradiction.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then method, then use case and output. Every sentence contributes value, with no filler 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return format ('ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity'). It covers purpose, method, usage context, and output, making it complete for a read-only comparison tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention the 'models', '_apiKey', or 'context' parameters. All parameter semantics are already fully detailed in the input schema descriptions.

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 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ai_visibility_check by emphasizing multi-entity comparison and ranking, not 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?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and gives a concrete example. It implies this is for comparing multiple entities vs. a single-entity check, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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

All Arcgis Roanoke 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tools span vastly different domains (AI visibility, data querying, prediction markets, GIS) with clear descriptions individually, but the set lacks a coherent focus. An agent looking for ArcGIS functionality would be distracted by many unrelated tools, causing confusion in tool selection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most tool names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. Some names are verbs (remember, forget), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, layer_info), and some include underscores inconsistently (generate_llms_txt vs. bet_research). The naming feels arbitrary.

Tool Count1/5

With 33 tools, the count is high, but the vast majority are from Pipeworx and unrelated to the server's stated purpose (Arcgis Roanoke). Only 3-4 tools actually relate to GIS. The tool count is extremely inappropriate for the server's focus.

Completeness1/5

For the implied domain of ArcGIS Roanoke, the tool surface is severely incomplete, lacking CRUD for map layers, spatial queries, or data management. Conversely, the Pipeworx subset is also incomplete on its own (e.g., missing many data sources). The overall surface fails to serve any single domain well.

Resources