Skip to main content
Glama

Data Montreal

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: it probes each entity with 'ai_visibility_check', ranks by score, surfaces most/least recognized, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. No 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?

The description is four sentences, each serving a purpose: main action, internal mechanics, use case, and return structure. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. No wasted words.

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). It also mentions that it uses 'ai_visibility_check' internally, which helps set expectations. For a composite tool with 4 parameters, this is complete enough to guide 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 has 100% parameter description coverage. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining that the first entity in 'entities' is treated as the 'subject' for narrative, and mentions the 'context' parameter disambiguates common names. This provides richer semantics for key parameters.

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 main action ('Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side'), with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ai_visibility_check' by describing it as a composite tool that ranks entities. The concrete example question 'does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?' solidifies purpose.

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 says 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and provides a scenario. It implies when to use (comparison of multiple entities). Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer correct usage.

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

All Data Montreal 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, and the several polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) have overlapping prediction-market territory. Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlaps could still cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., compare_entities, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt). A few tools deviate with noun/adjective prefixes (montreal_datasets, montreal_recent, pipeworx_feedback, recent_alerts) or single verbs (remember, recall, forget), but the overall style is consistent and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy. While each tool has a distinct role, the sheer number—spanning data access, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools—makes the surface harder for agents to navigate compared to a more focused server.

Completeness4/5

For its broad data-gateway purpose, the server covers a wide range: lookups, research, entity resolution, claim validation, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. The Montreal-specific subset (datasets, query, recent) is adequate for the apparent scope, with only minor gaps like no subscription-update tool.

Resources