Skip to main content
Glama

Bundlephobia

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
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description rightly focuses on behaviors beyond annotations: probing with ai_visibility_check, ranking by score, and returning a ranked list with score/confidence/signal density. It also hints at real-world usage and model support. 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?

Two sentences with an illustrative quote, front-loaded with the core action and output. Every sentence contributes value—no filler 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 explains the relationship to ai_visibility_check and notes multi-entity scope. Combined with comprehensive parameter schema, this is complete for a comparative audit tool.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'entities' as subject vs competitors is already in the schema). There is no extra clarification in the description itself, so it remains at baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side'), clearly distinguishing it from the single-entity ai_visibility_check and the generic compare_entities. It states it ranks by score and surfaces most/least recognized, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 clear use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') with an example question, and implies this is the multi-entity version of ai_visibility_check. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use compare_entities instead), so it falls short of a full 5.

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

All Bundlephobia 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is substantial overlap among tools in the Pipeworx group: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route natural-language queries to the same 5,578 tools and sources, with only subtle differences in mode (beta vs stable, grounded vs standard, single vs multi-part). Similarly, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk are heavily intertwined, making differentiation difficult. Tools like similar, size, history, and scan_dependency from the bundlephobia side are distinct, but the Pipeworx family muddies the set.

Naming Consistency3/5

The bundlephobia tools follow a consistent noun pattern (size, similar, history), and the Pipeworx meta-tools use snake_case verbs (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, compare_entities, validate_claim). However, the naming is inconsistent across the two families—bundlephobia's simple nouns (size, similar, history) clash with the verbose descriptive verbs—and naming like ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence, and generate_llms_txt break from the Pipeworx pattern. The set mixes short names, camelCase-ish compounds, and snake_case, so no single consistent convention holds.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a server that ostensibly serves two domains (bundle-size analysis and Pipeworx data research). The bundle-size analysis needs only a handful (size, history, similar, recent_searches, scan_dependency), yet there are over 30 tools dominated by a sprawling meta-research layer including multiple ask_pipeworx variants, several polymarket tools, plus meta-cognitive tools (remember, recall, forget, discover_tools) that are not core to either domain. This bloats the surface and makes call routing difficult.

Completeness4/5

Each functional domain is fairly complete: bundlephobia covers size measurement, history, alternatives, search, and dependency vetting; the Pipeworx side covers lookup, research, entity resolution, comparison, verification, subscriptions, and feedback. However, there are gaps—e.g., no tool for directly reading an npm package's README or license beyond scan_dependency's summary, and no explicit tools for some administrative actions like account management or subscription editing beyond create/cancel/list. The completeness is strong for what's advertised but not exhaustive.

Resources