Skip to main content
Glama

Data Sncf

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds significant behavioral context: it internally calls ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns score, confidence, and signal density per entity. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence contributes meaningful 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?

Given full schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density), internal mechanism, and use case. No gaps identified.

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% description coverage, so parameter basics are clear. The description adds value by explaining the 'entities' array: the first entity is treated as the subject for narrative, and the rest as competitors, which aids correct invocation.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (compare, probe, rank), resource (AI visibility across entities), and distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check by emphasizing side-by-side comparison. The example use case reinforces clarity.

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 for competitive AI-marketing audits with a concrete question. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like ai_visibility_check or compare_entities.

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

All Data Sncf 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the ask_pipeworx variants (standard, beta, grounded) and the Polymarket analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). While descriptions help differentiate, an agent may still select the wrong tool for a given task.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names mix verb-initial (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities) and noun-initial (dataset_info, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage) patterns. The snake_case convention is consistent, but the lack of a uniform verb_noun pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the server is overloaded relative to a clear scope. Many tools are meta-tools (memory, subscription management, feedback) that inflate the count. A more focused set of 15-20 tools would be more coherent.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of domains: structured data queries, entity profiles, comparisons, prediction market analysis, memory, subscriptions, and SNCF-specific data. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated weather or sports tools), but the universal ask_pipeworx compensates. Overall, users can accomplish most tasks without dead ends.

Resources