Skip to main content
Glama

dictionary

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description goes beyond this by disclosing the process: 'Probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces which is most/least recognized' and returns a specific structure ('score, confidence, signal density'). This adds valuable process-level transparency.

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 three sentences: purpose, mechanism, and use case. It is front-loaded with the core action, every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with 4 params, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers selection and invocation. It explicitly lists the return fields (score, confidence, signal density) and mentions the entities parameter's role, making it complete for an agent to decide and use correctly.

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 all parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it reinforces that entities are compared and probed, but this is already implied. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side', specifying the verb (compare), resource (AI visibility), and scope (multiple entities). It clearly distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check by emphasizing the multi-entity comparison and ranking, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' with a concrete example question. It implicitly contrasts with ai_visibility_check by describing the multi-entity approach, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools.

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

All dictionary 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical today), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are the same router with only an evidence-extraction difference. polymarket_edges, bet_research, and polymarket_arbitrage also overlap heavily in surfacing mispricings, and ai_visibility_check is essentially a single-entity version of scan_competitor_ai_presence.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are recognizable patterns: ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, verb_noun pairs like define_word, get_synonyms, resolve_entity. However, conventions are mixed across the set — ask_pipeworx_beta uses a suffix, ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are phrased in different styles, and memory tools (remember/recall/forget) follow yet another pattern. Readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for a single server, and many of them are meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, ask_pipeworx variants, pipeworx_trending, pipeworx_feedback, memory tools) that inflate the surface. The count would be defensible if each tool were orthogonal, but the overlap in research/Polymarket/memory areas means several tools do not earn their place.

Completeness4/5

For the actual Pipeworx data-access domain, coverage is quite rich: lookup, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and discovery tools all exist. Minor gaps remain (e.g., no tool to manage account/API keys, patents soft-fail), but the core query-research-monitor lifecycle is well covered. The server name 'dictionary' is misleading — only two tools serve a dictionary purpose — yet the inferred domain from descriptions is a data gateway, for which the surface is strong.

Resources