Skip to main content
Glama

Cpsc

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it probes with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, identifies most/least recognized, and returns a list with score, confidence, and 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: what it does, how it works, and what it returns. No fluff.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and explaining the internal process. It does not cover error cases or edge scenarios, but complexity is moderate and schema covers entity limits.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's 'your brand + N competitors' adds minor color but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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's function: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool ai_visibility_check by noting it probes each entity with that check and ranks results.

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 clear context for use with 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and an example question. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives beyond implying comparison vs. single check.

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

All Cpsc 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are organized into clearly differentiated families (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage), but there are some genuinely ambiguous pairs: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and search_recalls/recent_recalls, ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence, and bet_research/polymarket_edges all require careful reading to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is consistently lowercase snake_case and contains strong families like ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, recent_*, and search_*. However, the naming pattern is mixed: imperative verbs (recall, forget, subscribe), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending), and action prefixes (scan_, generate_, validate_) all coexist, making the overall convention less predictable than a uniform verb_noun scheme.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the server exceeds the healthy range and spreads across many side domains: data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency checks, llms.txt generation, and AI visibility audits. No individual tool feels pointless, but the overall surface is sprawling rather than tightly curated for a single purpose.

Completeness4/5

The core research workflow is well covered: querying, grounded verification, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, recent changes, claim validation, deep research, memory, and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist—there is no direct reader for pipeworx:// citation URIs, no tool to update or edit a stored memory, and subscriptions can be created/cancelled but not modified—but agents can work around these.

Resources