Skip to main content
Glama

crossref

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that it calls ai_visibility_check for each entity, ranks results by score, and returns a list including score, confidence, and signal density. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent) to explain internal behavior and output.

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 purpose, includes a concrete example and output summary, with no redundant content.

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 covers the tool's purpose, process, use case, and return format. It omits some operational details like external API usage for Anthropic, but those are captured in the schema parameters, so the description is sufficiently complete given the schema's richness.

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?

The input schema already covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description repeats the first-entry-as-subject concept already present in the schema's entity parameter description, adding no new parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It distinguishes itself from sibling ai_visibility_check by emphasizing multi-entity comparison and ranking, and from compare_entities by focusing on AI visibility specifically.

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 identifies a use case for competitive AI-marketing audits and provides an example query. It implies that ai_visibility_check is for single-entity probes while this tool aggregates them, though it doesn't explicitly exclude single-entity usage.

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

All crossref 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

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve queries, with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx. Prediction-market tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research, etc.) also have unclear boundaries, making tool selection tricky for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are consistently lowercase snake_case with a mostly verb-first pattern (get_work, search_works, list_subscriptions, validate_claim). Minor deviations exist: some names are noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes) and prefixes vary (get/search/list/ask/scan), but the overall convention is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far too many for a server named 'crossref', and only three tools actually relate to Crossref. The rest form a sprawling utility belt covering data routing, memory, subscriptions, prediction markets, AI visibility, and npm scanning — a scope mismatch that makes the server feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused offering.

Completeness2/5

The Crossref-specific surface is thin: search_works, get_work, and get_journal cover discovery and metadata but lack citation lookup, author search, and funder information. The broader Pipeworx surface is extensive but has no unifying domain, so it's impossible to consider the overall toolset complete for any coherent purpose.

Resources