Skip to main content
Glama

Data Dallas

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description adds context beyond annotations: performs multiple probes, ranks by score, treats first entity as subject. All annotations (readOnly, openWorld, etc.) are consistent.

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 purpose, no fluff. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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, description specifies return fields (score, confidence, signal density). Covers all parameter roles and behavior sufficiently for an agent.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds value by clarifying the role of the first entity in 'entities' and the purpose of 'context'. Does not repeat schema descriptions verbatim.

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 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side,' specifying the verb, resource, and output. It distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (likely different 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?

Provides explicit use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question. Implicitly distinguishes from single-entity tool, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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

All Data Dallas 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with a few overlapping pairs (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, multiple polymarket tools) that could cause mild confusion, but descriptions adequately differentiate them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case, but the verb_noun pattern is not consistently applied; some names are noun_noun (dallas_datasets, bet_research) or adjective_noun (ai_visibility_check), creating a mixed nomenclature.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range. While the broad data domain justifies many tools, the count feels heavy and would benefit from consolidation of related functions.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide array of domains (company data, drugs, economics, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions) with only minor gaps (e.g., no direct web search tool, as ask_pipeworx mostly covers it). Overall, it is comprehensive for its purpose.

Resources