Skip to main content
Glama

Diffbot

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized, providing transparency 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds the use case and return value, with no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the tool's behavior, internal steps, return value (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density), and a concrete example. It is fully informative.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by specifying that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' for narrative and the rest as competitors, which is not 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 a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (likely more general) by emphasizing 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 provides a clear use case (competitive AI-marketing audits) and an example question. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools for single-entity checks, though the context of comparing multiple entities is implicit.

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

All Diffbot 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple research entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and company analysis tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, bet_research) overlap heavily; the five polymarket_* tools also require careful reading to distinguish. Descriptions are detailed, but an agent must parse long disambiguation text to avoid mis-selection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix verb-first (list_subscriptions, validate_claim, remember), noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), product-prefixed (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback), and brand-prefixed (diffbot_company, diffbot_extract). No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set; polymarket_* and pipeworx_* prefixes are internally consistent but the overall scheme is chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well beyond the 3-15 sweet spot and in the 'too many' range. Many tools are meta-variants (4 ask_pipeworx flavors, 5 polymarket tools, 2 AI-visibility tools) that could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription subdomains are each fairly complete at a meta level, with few dead ends. Gaps include no subscription update (delete + recreate required), no explicit memory update, and no direct way to execute an arbitrary discovered Pipeworx tool aside from routing through ask_pipeworx.

Resources