Skip to main content
Glama

Ecfr

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description confirms it is a read-only probe, explains it uses ai_visibility_check internally, ranks entities, and returns structured results. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded. Every sentence provides essential information.

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?

All parameters documented in schema; description adds details about return values (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). No output schema needed; the description covers what to expect.

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 is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' for narrative, and 'context' disambiguates common names. This goes beyond schema definitions.

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 specifies the verb (compare/probe), resource (AI presence), and distinguishes from siblings like 'ai_visibility_check' (single entity) and 'compare_entities' (generic 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 explicit usage context: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and gives an example question. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context implies alternatives for single-entity checks. Sibling names clarify scope.

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

All Ecfr 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates (beta is currently identical), and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence plus deep_research vs ask_pipeworx create real selection ambiguity. Some clusters like the memory trio and CFR read tools are distinct, but the overall set is confusing.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern (search_regulations, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim), but noun-first names (entity_profile, title_structure, ai_visibility_check) and prefix families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) break the pattern. The conventions are mixed but still readable and mostly predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy for any single server, and the bulk of them (Polymarket betting, memory, AI visibility, npm scanning, subscriptions) are unrelated to the server's 'Ecfr' name, which suggests a narrow regulatory focus. This is a kitchen-sink scope, making the count feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness3/5

The eCFR-specific surface is thin — list_titles, search_regulations, get_section_text, and title_structure cover basic read/search but lack version history, update tracking, or agency-level navigation. Other mini-domains (data lookup, polymarket, subscriptions, memory) are individually fairly complete, but the absence of a unified purpose leaves clear gaps overall.

Resources