Skip to main content
Glama

Data Lv

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 declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld. Description adds process details: probes each entity, ranks by score, returns confidence and signal density. Does not mention potential rate limits or API key dependency for anthropic model, but schema covers that.

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, each adding unique information: action, process, use case, and output. No fluff.

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?

For a composite tool with 4 params (1 required) and no output schema, description adequately explains input semantics, process (calls ai_visibility_check), and output structure (ranked list with metrics). No missing critical information.

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 is 3. Description adds value by clarifying that first entity is treated as 'subject' for narrative and that context disambiguates names, going beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Compare' and resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side'. Distinguishes from sibling 'compare_entities' by specifying it uses AI visibility checks and scoring.

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 example question. Implicitly suggests when to use over sibling ai_visibility_check, but no explicit exclusions 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 Lv 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct purpose: data lookup (ask_pipeworx vs deep_research), entity profiles, comparisons, memory, monitoring, and prediction market analysis. Overlaps are minimal and mitigated by explicit usage guidance (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. ask_pipeworx_grounded vs. deep_research).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use descriptive snake_case names following a verb_noun or verb_preposition pattern (e.g., entity_profile, resolve_entity, scan_dependency). The naming is predictable and internally consistent, making it easy for an agent to infer tool purposes.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high end for typical MCP servers. However, the server covers an exceptionally broad domain (structured data across SEC, FDA, FRED, weather, news, crypto, etc.) and includes meta-tools, monitoring, and memory. The count is justified but may feel excessive for many use cases.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of data access and analysis: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), retrieval (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile), comparison, claim validation, monitoring, memory, and feedback. There are no obvious gaps for the declared domain, and a feedback tool is provided for missing functionality.

Resources