Skip to main content
Glama

Commons Wikimedia

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces most/least recognized, and returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with an example, front-loaded purpose. Each sentence contributes. Could be slightly more concise but overall efficient.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and output sufficiently for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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. Description adds meaning: explains that first entity is treated as 'subject' for narrative, others as competitors, clarifies models parameter options and _apiKey purpose, and provides context parameter use.

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 it compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, using a specific verb 'compare' and resource 'AI visibility'. It distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check by emphasizing multiple entities and ranking.

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 explicit usage context: 'useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' with an example question. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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

All Commons Wikimedia 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

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all cover prediction-market analysis with blurry boundaries. The server name 'Commons Wikimedia' also clashes with 30+ Pipeworx tools, making the overall purpose ambiguous. Only the handful of Commons-specific tools (category_members, file_info, file_revisions, random_image, search) are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and many follow a noun_phrase pattern (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_changes), but verb styles are inconsistent: some are bare verbs (search, recall, subscribe), some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity, validate_claim), and several are noun-only (category_members, file_info, pipeworx_feedback). The style is readable but not predictable, mixing action-first and object-first conventions.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far too many for a server ostensibly named 'Commons Wikimedia' — the vast majority belong to the Pipeworx data platform, not Wikimedia Commons. The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many,' and the scope mismatch between the server name and the actual toolset makes the abundance feel even more unjustified.

Completeness2/5

For 'Commons Wikimedia,' the surface is severely incomplete: there is no upload, no category tree navigation, no file download, and no structured search beyond full-text. For the Pipeworx domain, coverage is broad but indirect — most data access funnels through aggregate/meta tools (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, deep_research) rather than direct per-source tools, leaving gaps for granular lookups and leaving the Commons tools stranded with no real integration.

Resources