Skip to main content
Glama

artic

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 and idempotentHint, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context: it probes each entity via ai_visibility_check, ranks results, and returns score, confidence, and signal density—details not present in 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 no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action, then explains the mechanism and gives a concrete use case. 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?

Given full schema coverage and annotations, the description explains the tool's mechanism (probing sub-calls), output format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density), and a clear use case. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it references 'your brand + competitors' but schema already explains the entities array). No additional clarification needed.

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 it 'Compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side', specifies the mechanism (probes with ai_visibility_check), and differentiates from siblings by focusing on competitive multi-entity comparison. It also explicitly names the underlying tool, distinguishing it from generic comparison tools.

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 concrete use case: 'competitive AI-marketing audits' with an example question ('does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?'), implying when to use this tool over single-entity ai_visibility_check. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

All artic 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters of tools heavily overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language questions over the same underlying sources, and six polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have blurry boundaries. The four art museum tools are entirely unrelated to the data-research tools, adding confusion to the set.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case and generally readable, but the verb-object pattern is not consistent: bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe) sit alongside verb-first names (get_artwork, validate_claim, resolve_entity) and noun-first compounds (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges, ai_visibility_check). The repeated prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_) do provide some structure.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the server is overstuffed. The core Pipeworx data and Polymarket analytics surface alone would justify roughly 20 tools, but memory management, subscription lifecycle, llms.txt generation, npm dependency scanning, claim validation, and Art Institute of Chicago lookups are unrelated additions that push the count well beyond a focused scope.

Completeness4/5

Each functional cluster is fairly complete on its own: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/recent_alerts/unsubscribe, data lookup has casual, grounded, deep, and validation modes, and prediction markets cover research, edges, arbitrage, fill risk, tracking, and cross-venue spreads. The issue is not missing capabilities but the lack of a single coherent domain.

Resources