Skip to main content
Glama

Companies House

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value by detailing that the tool probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks results, and returns score, confidence, signal density. It also notes the first entity is treated 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is two concise sentences plus an illustrative example. It is front-loaded with the main action. Slightly verbose in the example but overall efficient. Could be slightly more structured but still effective.

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?

No output schema, but description adequately describes return values (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It mentions probing with ai_visibility_check and the role of first entity. Covers essential aspects for tool selection and use.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds context: 'entities' array first entry is subject, rest competitors; models default to workers-ai; _apiKey needed for anthropic. This enhances understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, using ai_visibility_check, and returns a ranked list with scores. It differentiates from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic) by specifying the exact function: competitive AI-marketing audit.

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 explicitly states the use case: 'competitive AI-marketing audits' and gives example query. It implies when to use (comparing multiple entities' AI recognition) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. Sibling tools provide that context, but the description itself lacks exclusions.

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

All Companies House 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping jobs: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with stricter extraction, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve discovery. Company-facing tools also overlap (entity_profile vs recent_changes vs compare_entities), so an agent could easily route a query to the wrong tool despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly snake_case and grouped prefixes like get_*, ask_pipeworx*, and polymarket_* are readable. However, conventions are mixed across the set: some are verb_noun (search_companies), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, recent_changes), and the Companies House family sits awkwardly beside unrelated Pipeworx and prediction-market families.

Tool Count1/5

With 36 tools, the server is already heavy, but only five tools actually serve the named Companies House domain. The other 31 belong to Pipeworx querying, memory, subscriptions, and Polymarket trading, which is a severe mismatch between the server's stated purpose and its actual surface.

Completeness3/5

For UK company data, the core surface is mostly covered: search, company profile, filings, officers, and PSCs. However, charges and official document retrieval are missing even though get_company links to them, and the unrelated tools do nothing to complete the Companies House domain.

Resources