Skip to main content
Glama

Artsmia

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds value by detailing the internal process (calls ai_visibility_check, ranks, returns score, confidence, signal density) and the fact it probes multiple entities. 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 long, with the core action front-loaded: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' Each sentence adds information without redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 explains what the tool returns (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and how it works (probes each entity). With no output schema, this is sufficient. It could mention ordering, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to understand inputs and outputs.

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% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context that 'entities' first entry is the subject, which is not explicit in schema. It also explains the overall workflow, adding value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is raised due to this additional clarification.

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 action: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It specifies it probes each entity using ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (general 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 provides explicit use cases: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits: "does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?"'. It implies when to use this tool (multi-entity comparison) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though the sibling context provides that.

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

All Artsmia 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

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, and the polymarket_* family (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) all target prediction-market analysis with fuzzy boundaries. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap as well. While some tools are clearly distinct (art search vs memory), the set as a whole requires careful reading to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow multiple patterns: verb_noun (search_artworks, resolve_entity, validate_claim), domain_prefixed (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), and product-style names (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, deep_research). Versioned suffixes like ask_pipeworx_beta and ask_pipeworx_grounded break any unified convention. Even though subgroups are internally consistent, the overall pattern is mixed and unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is on the high side, especially for a server named after an art museum. Only 3 tools actually relate to the Minneapolis Institute of Art, while the rest are a general-purpose data platform, prediction-market analysis, and memory/subscription features. Many of these extra tools are redundant or power-user variations, making the count feel inflated relative to the apparent domain.

Completeness3/5

For the stated art domain, the read-only surface (search, get, department highlights) is functional but thin — no artist browse, exhibitions, or advanced filtering. The broader data tools are comprehensive in themselves, but their presence distracts from the core domain and creates confusion about the server's intended purpose. The art coverage is adequate for basic queries but lacks depth expected from a dedicated museum collection API.

Resources