Skip to main content
Glama

Dockerhub

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds beyond that: 'Probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces which is most/least recognized' and 'Returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity.' No contradictions with 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. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is efficiently structured.

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?

The description explains what the tool does, how it works (using ai_visibility_check), and what it returns. For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, this is sufficient. It could mention that the 'models' parameter applies to underlying probes, but overall it is complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds extra meaning: 'First entry treated as the 'subject' for narrative; rest are competitors.' It also explains that 'context' disambiguates common names and that 'models' and '_apiKey' interact. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It uses a specific verb (compare), resource (AI visibility), and scope (multiple entities). The description distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ai_visibility_check' by mentioning it probes each entity with that tool and returns a ranked 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 concrete use case: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits: does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the relationship to 'ai_visibility_check' is implied.

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

All Dockerhub 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

Many tools overlap in purpose, e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, and validate_claim all perform data lookups with subtle differences. Polymarket tools also have overlapping scopes. The large number of tools with similar functions creates confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are inconsistent: some use verb_noun (get_image, list_subscriptions), others are descriptive phrases (ai_visibility_check, bet_research), and some are single words (forget, recall). No clear pattern.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high, and many are unrelated to Dockerhub. The server name suggests a focused Docker toolset, but the bulk of tools are for Pipeworx/Polymarket/data lookups, making the count excessive for the advertised domain.

Completeness2/5

As a Dockerhub server, it lacks basic Docker operations like push, delete, or manage repositories. As a general data toolset, it covers many domains but still misses some core operations (e.g., no tool for searching inside images).

Resources