Skip to main content
Glama

Data Usdot

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral details: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, treats first entity as subject for narrative. This is additive beyond 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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the main purpose and include an illustrative example. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool is moderately complex with 4 params and no output schema. Description adequately explains returns (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Annotations cover safety and idempotency. Lacks only explicit example of output format or error handling, but still sufficient for agent to use correctly.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters (100% coverage). Description adds context: models default to 'workers-ai', context disambiguates, entities first treated as subject. This provides usage semantics beyond schema.

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 it compares AI visibility across multiple entities, using ai_visibility_check per entity and ranking results. Differentiates from sibling ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (general 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?

Explicitly mentions competitive AI-marketing audits and gives a concrete example use case ('does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?'). However, does not provide negative guidance or explicitly differentiate from sibling '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 Usdot 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping or near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are one base query flow with different flavors, while entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all overlap on company information. The Polymarket family and the discovery/onboarding tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending) also create boundary confusion despite good descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is consistently snake_case and mostly readable, but it mixes verb_noun tools (compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-phrase tools (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending, datasets, metadata). The ask_pipeworx variants use a beta/grounded suffix pattern that is not applied uniformly across the other tool families.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and feels like several servers merged into one: US DOT catalog access, a generic Pipeworx data router, prediction-market tools, memory/subscription management, AI-visibility checks, and meta/discovery utilities. Many tools could be consolidated (the three ask_pipeworx variants, the five Polymarket tools, and the discovery trio).

Completeness3/5

The core data lifecycle is broadly covered: catalog search, metadata, querying, natural-language lookup, grounded verification, entity resolution, entity profiles, comparison, research, subscriptions, and memory all have working paths. However, the server is named around US DOT data but only datasets/metadata/query are DOT-specific, and the rest is an unrelated general-purpose data and prediction-market toolkit, leaving the stated domain feeling incomplete.

Resources