Skip to main content
Glama

Csv

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that this tool is a composite operation that calls ai_visibility_check for each entity, ranks results, and returns a structured list. This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by explaining the underlying orchestration.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence followed by a short sentence, but it is slightly verbose. It front-loads the key action and purpose, but could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It covers the composite behavior and parameter roles. Missing error cases (like missing API key for anthropic) but otherwise complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the role of the first entity as the 'subject' for narrative and the purpose of the context parameter for disambiguation, providing meaning beyond the parameter names and types.

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 precisely states that the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities, probes each with ai_visibility_check, and returns a ranked list. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (general comparison).

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 clear use case: competitive AI-marketing audits, with an example question. It implicitly suggests using this tool when you have multiple entities to compare, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use.

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

All Csv 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

Several tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today, and the polymarket_* family plus bet_research all touch prediction-market analysis. The descriptions are extremely detailed and mostly disambiguate, but an agent must rely on very long text to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are almost all snake_case and readable, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb-first (resolve_entity, list_subscriptions), some noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_edges), and some are one-word verbs (remember, forget). The ask_pipeworx_* and recent_* prefixes are consistent, but there is no single verb_noun convention throughout.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well over the 25+ threshold, especially for a server named 'Csv' that contains only two CSV-specific tools. The rest spans several unrelated domains: data research, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, AI visibility, and package scanning. The set feels like multiple servers bundled together rather than one well-scoped surface.

Completeness4/5

As a broad data-research platform, coverage is strong: lookup, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, fact-checking, subscription lifecycle, and memory persistence are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct fetch tool for pipeworx:// citation URIs and no subscription-update tool, but most workflows have no dead ends.

Resources