Skip to main content
Glama

Deezer

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. Added

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, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant context: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density, fully disclosing the internal process and output structure without 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' No extraneous words; every sentence provides essential information.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (multiple entities, ranking, optional parameters), the description covers purpose, process, and output format sufficiently. The schema handles parameter details, so the description does not need to repeat them. The tool is well-documented.

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. The description adds value by explaining that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' for narrative, which is not in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on optional parameters like models or context, but those are adequately described in the 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?

The description clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, using ai_visibility_check probes and ranking. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (likely different domain) by specifying the competitive audit use case.

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 recommends use for competitive AI-marketing audits with an example question. It implies usage context but does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives to sibling comparison tools like compare_entities, slightly reducing clarity.

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

All Deezer 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all route queries to structured data), and the set mixes Deezer music tools with an unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket suite. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool for a given request.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is mixed: single-word nouns (album, artist, track, chart), verb_noun snake_case (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), and verbose multi-concept names (scan_competitor_ai_presence, polymarket_kalshi_spread). No consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count1/5

37 tools for a server named 'Deezer' is far beyond a music API scope; the overwhelming majority are unrelated data-research, prediction-market, and utility tools. This is an extreme mismatch between the server name and the tool surface.

Completeness2/5

For the Deezer music domain, the surface is incomplete (no playlists, user library, lyrics, or radio), while the many unrelated tools each cover only fragments of their domains. The overall set lacks coherent coverage of any single purpose.

Resources