Skip to main content
Glama

Dart Kr

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: reveals internal call to ai_visibility_check, describes ranking and output format. Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, etc., so description complements well without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences that pack purpose, mechanism, use case, and output summary without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, description adequately explains return: ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. Covers prerequisites, use case, and what the tool produces.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds useful context for models ('supported models'), _apiKey ('passed to api.anthropic.com'), and context ('disambiguates common names'). Briefly explains entities as subject vs competitors.

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 ai_visibility_check internally, and ranks results. It distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on single entities (e.g., 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 ('does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?') and implies when to use this over ai_visibility_check (multiple entities). Could be more explicit about when not to use, but overall clear.

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

All Dart Kr 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx_beta deliberately matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now, discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve as what-can-I-do entry points, and ai_visibility_check is just the single-entity version of scan_competitor_ai_presence. An agent will struggle to pick the right variant without carefully reading long descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools are snake_case and several families share clear prefixes (dart_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*), but the overall set mixes verb_noun (discover_tools, validate_claim), noun_phrase (entity_profile, deep_research), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and prefix-noun (dart_financials). Readable but not unified.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far above the 25+ heavy threshold, and the count is inflated by redundancy: ask_pipeworx_beta is a literal duplicate today, suggest_questions overlaps discover_tools, and ai_visibility_check is subsumed by scan_competitor_ai_presence. The broad Pipeworx platform justifies many tools, but the exposed surface is bloated.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the apparent domain well: universal querying (ask_pipeworx family + deep_research), tool discovery, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim verification, Korean DART filings, Polymarket analysis/fill-risk, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. Minor gaps remain—there's no explicit fetch-by-citation-URI tool despite claims those URIs are fetchable, and no way to retrieve full DART filing text beyond discovery.

Resources