Skip to main content
Glama

Cnb Cz

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 already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: that it probes with ai_visibility_check, ranks, and returns score, confidence, signal density per entity. No contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the main action and output, no wasted words.

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 lacking an output schema, the description explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity). All major aspects are covered given the tool's complexity and context signals.

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%, so each parameter is already described. The description adds that the first entity in 'entities' array is treated as the 'subject' for narrative and the rest as competitors, which adds useful semantic nuance beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it compares AI visibility across multiple entities, probes each with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized. This distinguishes it from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (likely different scope).

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?

Explicitly notes usefulness for competitive AI-marketing audits and gives an example question. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear and sufficient for an agent to infer usage boundaries.

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

All Cnb Cz 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools have distinct purposes overall, but some pairs (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, entity_profile vs recent_changes) could cause agent confusion without careful reading. Descriptions mitigate overlap, so only minor ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools use snake_case with verb_noun or noun_verb patterns, but several single-word verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe) and a few inconsistent forms (czeonia, pribor) break uniformity. Still, the pattern is largely predictable.

Tool Count4/5

31 tools is high but justified for a multi-domain data gateway covering finance, economics, FDA, betting, and subscriptions. Each tool has a clear role, though the count pushes the upper bound for easy scanning.

Completeness5/5

The tool set comprehensively covers its stated domains: entity resolution, financial data, exchange rates, interest rates, SEC filings, FDA, Polymarket analysis, subscriptions, and utility memory. No obvious gaps given its purpose as a data retrieval and analysis server.

Resources