Skip to main content
Glama

Cta

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks results, and returns score, confidence, and signal density, plus the first entity is treated as the subject.

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 main action, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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) and covers behavior and parameters comprehensively. Annotations cover safety aspects.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context, such as the first entity being the subject and the relationship between models and _apiKey, which adds value 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, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single probe) and compare_entities (generic 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 explicitly states it is useful for competitive AI-marketing audits, with an example question. It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or list all alternatives, though it contrasts with ai_visibility_check.

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

All Cta 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 heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all accept natural-language factual questions, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. The entity tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, resolve_entity) and the many Polymarket tools also blur together, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case and readable, with recognizable prefixes like cta_, polymarket_, and ask_pipeworx_. However, conventions are mixed: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), noun-style phrases (entity_profile, bet_research), and variants like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence prevent a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the comfortable range, and the count is especially mismatched for a server named 'Cta': only 4 tools actually concern Chicago transit, while the other 31 form a general-purpose research, prediction-market, and memory suite. The set feels like multiple unrelated servers merged together.

Completeness2/5

As a CTA server, the surface is notably incomplete: it has bus/train positions and predictions but lacks alerts, service disruptions, route listings, and station/stop metadata. The broader Pipeworx tools are extensive but appear bolted on, so the overall set has no coherent domain against which completeness can be judged.

Resources