Skip to main content
Glama

Devto

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing that it probes each entity, ranks by score, and returns per-entity score, confidence, and signal density. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence is informative and necessary, with no fluff or repetition.

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 4 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately explains the tool's output (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and usage context, making it complete for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates the entities parameter's role (first as subject) which is already 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 and ranking by score. It differentiates from sibling ai_visibility_check (single entity) by focusing on multi-entity 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?

The description provides a clear use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and a concrete example. It implicitly differentiates from ai_visibility_check, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list specific alternatives.

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

All Devto 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but some overlap exists, e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, and several entity/company tools that could be confused. Overall, well-described and mostly disambiguated.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow consistent patterns: snake_case, with clear prefixes for each group (e.g., polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, get_article, etc.). Naming is predictable and systematic, making it easy to understand the tool's domain and action.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a server named 'Devto', where only a few tools actually relate to DEV.to. The majority are for Pipeworx data and Polymarket, which are unrelated. The tool count feels bloated and misaligned with the server's apparent primary purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the DEV.to domain, coverage is incomplete: lacks create/update/delete for articles and missing user profile management. The Pipeworx and Polymarket tools are extensive, but that doesn't compensate for the gaps in the core feature set implied by the server name.

Resources