Skip to main content
Glama

Celestrak

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, all consistent with the description. The description adds details: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence provides essential information without fluff. It is concise 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and the process. It does not give a detailed example output, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: the first entity is treated as the 'subject' for narrative, rest as competitors. It also explains that models like 'anthropic' require an _apiKey, clarifying parameter interdependence.

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 compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, specifying the verb 'compare' and the resource 'AI visibility'. It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic 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 a concrete use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like ai_visibility_check for single entities. Still clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate context.

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

All Celestrak 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

The tool set mixes several distinct domains (satellite orbital data, Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market analysis, memory management, subscriptions), but within the Pipeworx umbrella there is heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route natural-language questions to the same underlying 5,756 tools. An agent could easily misselect between them, especially since ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (list_subscriptions, create... none, but compare_entities, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, subscribe/unsubscribe, remember/recall/forget), yet the naming is inconsistent across the set: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, get_satellite, get_group, recent_alerts, recent_changes, entity_profile, and deep_research do not share a uniform convention. CamelCase appears in polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc. while most others are snake_case, and the satellite tools (get_satellite, get_group, search_by_name) form a distinct sub-pattern that clashes with the Pipeworx meta-tools.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is on the heavy side, and the effective surface is bloated: there are three variants of ask_pipeworx, four polymarket_* tools, three satellite-specific tools that are unrelated to the server's apparent core purpose, and several meta/utility tools (remember, recall, forget, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, suggest_questions) that could be consolidated or are only tangentially related. The count itself is not extreme, but the scope is muddled: the server claims the name Celestrak (satellite tracking) while the overwhelming majority of tools are for Pipeworx data access and prediction markets, making the tool count feel inappropriate for either purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the Pipeworx data-access domain, the tool set is quite thorough: natural-language routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiling, entity comparison, claim verification, semantic search, and tool discovery are all present. However, there are notable gaps: the subscription lifecycle lacks an update/resume mechanism, and the satellite domain (the server's namesake) is severely incomplete — only three lookup tools with no live tracking, no group listing beyond a handful of groups, and no clear lifecycle CRUD. The memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are minimal but complete for their narrow scope.

Resources