Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Tucson

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check and ranks results, which is sufficient. No contradictions 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?

Two sentences plus an example use case. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. No fluff 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 no output schema, the description specifies the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It covers the probing mechanism and all parameters. Complete for a tool with 4 params and 1 required.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds useful context beyond schema: first entity is subject, rest competitors, and context disambiguates common names. This supplements the schema effectively.

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 compares AI visibility across multiple entities, using ai_visibility_check, and returns a ranked list. It distinguishes from the sibling 'ai_visibility_check' by focusing on side-by-side 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 explicitly mentions use case: competitive AI-marketing audits, and gives an example. It implies when to use (comparing multiple entities) but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives.

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

All Arcgis Tucson 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While individual tool descriptions are detailed and specific, the set includes overlapping tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, and several prediction market tools with similar purposes (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). The broad range of unrelated domains means many tools are distinct, but some pairs are ambiguous.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use snake_case but follow no consistent pattern. Some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, query_layer), some noun_verb (ai_visibility_check, entity_profile), and some have inconsistent structure (discover_tools, recent_alerts). The mix of conventions reduces predictability.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Arcgis Tucson', as only 3 tools relate to ArcGIS (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer). The rest span completely unrelated domains (Pipeworx data, Polymarket, memory, npm scanning, etc.), creating a severe mismatch between server name and tool functionality.

Completeness3/5

Considering the actual tool surface (a diverse data retrieval and prediction market analysis set), it is reasonably complete for common lookups (SEC, FDA, economics, news, bets). However, it lacks web search and the ArcGIS tools are minimal. The absence of a cohesive domain makes completeness hard to judge, but for the implied data-retrieval purpose, it's passable.

Resources