Skip to main content
Glama

Dostuff

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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral details: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks, surfaces most/least recognized, returns score/confidence/signal density. Adds value beyond annotations 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-load the main purpose, then detail behavior and use case. No redundant or unnecessary text. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return value (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and process (probes, ranks, surfaces). Covers all essential aspects given tool complexity and parameter richness.

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 3. Description adds extra meaning: 'First entry treated as the 'subject' for narrative; rest are competitors', which aids agent understanding. Also clarifies that models and _apiKey are optional and context disambiguates common names.

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?

Description clearly states 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side' with specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check (single-entity) and compare_entities (generic comparison) by mentioning AI visibility, ranking, and competitive audit context.

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?

Explicitly states use case: 'competitive AI-marketing audits: does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?'. Implies when not to (single entity check) by mentioning it probes multiple entities. Does not explicitly name alternatives but context is clear.

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

All Dostuff 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
Disambiguation2/5

The set contains near-duplicate tools (ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly') and a dense family of six polymarket_* tools whose boundaries are subtle, plus overlapping onboarding tools in discover_tools and suggest_questions. Detailed descriptions mitigate some confusion, but several tools are difficult to tell apart without reading their full text.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, with consistent prefix families (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, pipeworx_), but the overall structure is mixed: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), adjective+noun names (recent_alerts, recent_changes), and noun+noun domain tags (polymarket_edges, entity_profile) rather than a uniform verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold and feels heavy, carrying an experimental duplicate of ask_pipeworx and a six-tool polymarket family that could plausibly be consolidated. The breadth reflects several unrelated domains bundled into one server rather than a focused scope.

Completeness3/5

The data-research core (ask, grounded, deep_research, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, entity resolution) and the prediction-market analysis suite are thoroughly covered, and memory plus subscription lifecycles are complete. However, the events domain the server is named for is thin (only events + metros), and the overall set lacks a single coherent purpose against which completeness can be cleanly judged.

Resources