Skip to main content
Glama

Cms

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 indicate safe, non-destructive, idempotent read. The description adds valuable behavior: probing each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranking by score, returning score/confidence/signal density, and treating first entity as subject. 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?

Two sentences plus bullet point of return structure. Front-loaded with core action, then use case, then output summary. 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?

With no output schema, description covers return structure (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Mentions special treatment of first entity. Could be more explicit about output format (e.g., list of objects with fields), but overall adequate given complexity.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the purpose of 'context' (disambiguates common names) and the relationship between 'models' and '_apiKey'. This extra context elevates the score.

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, ranking them and identifying most/least recognized. It distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) by specifying multi-entity 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 specific use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. However, implicit differentiation from siblings like ai_visibility_check and compare_entities is present.

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

All Cms 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
Disambiguation3/5

Some tools have clearly distinct purposes (remember/recall/forget, subscribe/unsubscribe), but the ask_pipeworx family overlaps heavily — ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical today, and ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research are variations on the same routing core. Polymarket tools and comparison/profile tools also have fuzzy boundaries, though detailed descriptions help agents choose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (search_datasets, get_dataset, validate_claim, resolve_entity). A few deviate with bare verbs (remember, forget, recall) or noun-like names (dataset_info, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), but the overall style is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is a heavy surface for one server, and the scope sprawls across CMS open data, general data research, prediction markets, memory storage, and subscription management. Many of these could be split into separate coherent servers, and several meta-routers (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions) overlap in purpose.

Completeness4/5

Within the broad data-research domain the set is fairly complete: search, retrieval, grounding, comparison, entity resolution, verification, subscriptions, and memory are all covered with no obvious dead ends. However, the server is named 'Cms' yet only three tools actually touch CMS datasets, leaving that narrow purpose under-covered relative to the rest.

Resources