Skip to main content
Glama

Complex Portal

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. This provides useful behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous information.

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?

The description explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity) despite no output schema. It also explains the internal call to ai_visibility_check. For a comparison tool with 4 parameters all documented, this is sufficiently complete.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal context: that the first entity in 'entities' is treated as the subject for narrative. Otherwise, it does not significantly extend meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, ranks them, and surfaces most/least recognized. It specifies the use case for competitive AI-marketing audits and distinguishes from the sibling tool ai_visibility_check.

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 concrete use case and implies when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., comparing multiple entities vs. single check with ai_visibility_check). It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is clear.

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

All Complex Portal 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research heavily overlap with them, and entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and validate_claim all circle the same company-data space. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also requires careful reading to distinguish. The descriptions help, but the set relies on them to disambiguate near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case style, whether verb_noun (search_complexes, validate_claim, unsubscribe), noun_verb (entity_profile, recent_changes), or brand-like (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_edges). There is no camelCase mixing or chaotic verb style. Minor inconsistency exists between imperative verbs (remember, forget, subscribe) and noun-style names, but the overall pattern is readable and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the 25-tool 'heavy' threshold, and many are meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, remember/recall/forget) that pad the surface. The server is named 'Complex Portal', yet only two tools serve that purpose—the rest belong to a broad data platform. The count feels inflated and misaligned with the server's stated identity.

Completeness3/5

For the broad Pipeworx data platform the surface is fairly complete: universal querying, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. For the Complex Portal domain named by the server, coverage is thin—just search and fetch-by-accession, with no browsing, species filtering, or cross-reference tools. The core workflow works, but the namesake domain is under-served relative to the rest of the set.

Resources