Skip to main content
Glama

Dummyjson

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it probes each entity and returns a ranked list, which is consistent and adds useful context 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words, efficiently conveys what the tool does and when to use it.

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, the description explicitly mentions the return format: ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity. The tool is well-covered for its complexity and parameter count.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that the first entity is treated as the subject and that models are probed, but these are already implied by the schema descriptions. No significant additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 purpose: compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, ranking them by score. It specifies that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check and surfaces most/least recognized, distinguishing it from the single-entity sibling ai_visibility_check.

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 ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context makes it clear it's for multi-entity comparison.

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

All Dummyjson 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 have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple tools for data retrieval (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile) that differ only in nuance, and the inclusion of both DummyJSON and Pipeworx tools creates confusion about which domain to use for what. Agents will struggle to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: Pipeworx tools use diverse patterns (verb_noun like 'validate_claim', noun like 'entity_profile', verb like 'forget'), while DummyJSON tools use simple nouns (posts, comments). No consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

43 tools is excessive for a server named 'Dummyjson'. The majority are Pipeworx tools unrelated to fake data, making the set feel bloated and unfocused. The count is too large for the apparent scope.

Completeness3/5

For a fake data API, the set is incomplete: it only provides read operations (fetch, search) with no create, update, or delete capabilities. However, for the Pipeworx portion, the read coverage is extensive, so it's not severely lacking overall.

Resources