Skip to main content
Glama

Bts

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it internally calls ai_visibility_check for each entity and returns a ranked list. This aligns with annotations and provides useful behavioral context; no contradictions.

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 two sentences: first states the core function, second provides a practical use case and output summary. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence is informative without being verbose.

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 tool has moderate complexity with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description adequately explains the aggregated ranking output (score, confidence, signal density). However, it omits potential errors from invalid API keys or empty results, which is acceptable given schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by noting that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' for narrative, which is not in the schema. This qualifies as meaningful addition.

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 title and description clearly state that the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities. It uses specific verb 'scan' and resource 'competitor AI presence', and distinguishes itself from siblings like ai_visibility_check by aggregating multiple probes.

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') and implies it is for multi-entity comparisons. However, it does not explicitly state when to use the single-entity sibling ai_visibility_check instead, missing a clear exclusion.

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

All Bts 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but the multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several Polymarket tools could cause initial confusion. An agent reading carefully can differentiate them, but the similarity in themes requires attention.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names use a mix of conventions: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), noun_noun (entity_profile, dataset_columns), and single verbs (remember, forget). While some subgroups have internal consistency (e.g., polymarket_*), there is no overall predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the count exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25. While the server is comprehensive, the large number of highly specific tools (especially for prediction markets) feels overwhelming and could confuse agents.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of capabilities: data querying, entity resolution, company analysis, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no data writing tools), but for the read-heavy analytical purpose, it is nearly complete.

Resources