Skip to main content
Glama

Biosamples

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description discloses that it internally calls ai_visibility_check for each entity, returns a ranked list with score/confidence/signal density, and treats the first entity as the subject. 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 concise sentences: first states the core function, second gives a use case and overview of the output. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return object (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and the process. However, the exact structure per entity could be more explicit.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by explaining that the first entity in the array is treated as the subject and the rest as competitors, and that the context parameter disambiguates common names. This goes beyond the 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 the verb ('Compare AI visibility') and resource ('multiple entities'), with explicit differentiation from the sibling tool 'ai_visibility_check' by noting it probes multiple entities side-by-side.

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 concrete use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and implies that for single entities, one should use ai_visibility_check. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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

All Biosamples 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

Many tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants (beta currently identical), and the set includes five-plus prediction-market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, bet_research) with fuzzy boundaries. Long descriptions help, but an agent selecting among them would frequently struggle to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: verb_first names (search_samples, validate_claim, resolve_entity) mix with noun-style names (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage) and bare imperatives (remember, recall, forget, subscribe). It is readable, but there is no predictable verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well over the coherent range, and the count is especially inflated because the server is named Biosamples yet only two tools (search_samples, get_sample) actually belong to that domain. The remaining 31 tools are an unrelated mix of Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities, including redundant variants.

Completeness2/5

For the stated Biosamples purpose, only search and retrieve exist—no submission, update, or batch operations—so the domain surface is a read-only fragment. For the broader accidental scope of the other tools, the set is a grab bag with no coherent lifecycle, leaving significant gaps regardless of which domain is considered primary.

Resources