Skip to main content
Glama

Codestats

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds behavioral context by stating it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check and ranks results, which goes beyond annotations without contradicting them. It does not mention external API calls or auth details, but that is partially in the schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, includes a useful example, and specifies return fields. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information or padding.

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?

Given the moderate complexity and the rich annotations + full schema coverage, the description adequately covers purpose, process, use case, and output. It clearly states the tool calls ai_visibility_check and returns a ranked list with score/confidence/signal density, so an agent can invoke it correctly.

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% with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as reinforcing that entities are brand names and first is the subject, but this is already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 sibling. It also describes the ranking process and return fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool for competitive AI-marketing audits and gives an illustrative example ('does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with single-entity alternatives or list specific conditions when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Codestats 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct, well-described purposes, but clusters like ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded and the five polymarket_* tools have overlapping scopes that could cause misselection. The beta currently behaves identically to the stable router, and `recent` vs `recent_changes` vs `recent_alerts` are confusingly similar names for different domains.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names use lowercase underscores, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: some are verbs (ask, compare, generate), some are nouns (entity_profile, recent, user), and some are adjectives (deep_research). There are coherent subfamilies (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions, remember/recall/forget), but the overall naming is a mix of conventions.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the 25+ threshold, making the surface heavy and hard to navigate. Many are highly specialized meta-tools (e.g., five Polymarket analyzers) that could be consolidated.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'Codestats', only `recent` and `user` address coding stats, leaving major gaps in what that name implies. The broader data/research/betting capabilities are fairly rich, but the server's stated identity is under-served and there's no clear lifecycle coverage for any single domain.

Resources