Skip to main content
Glama

Emailable

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are present and consistent. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the probing mechanism (calls ai_visibility_check for each entity), ranking logic, and output fields (score, confidence, signal density). 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and packs in all essential information: purpose, method, use case, and output. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately specifies return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It explains the multi-step process without being overly verbose. Minor gap: does not explicitly mention the default model or that _apiKey is only needed for Anthropic, but those are in the schema.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by explaining that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' and that the context parameter disambiguates common names. This goes beyond the raw 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 it compares AI visibility across multiple entities, uses ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list. It distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check and compare_entities by focusing on multi-entity comparison for AI presence audits.

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 contextualizes with an example question. It implicitly suggests using ai_visibility_check for single entities, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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

All Emailable 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx family (standard, beta, grounded) and validate_claim vs ask_pipeworx_grounded may cause some confusion for agents despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern, and most are verb_noun structures (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.

Tool Count4/5

With 32 tools, the set is larger than ideal but well-justified by the broad scope of data sources and functionalities (email verification, SEC/FDA lookups, prediction market analysis, memory, subscriptions).

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full pipeline from data discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions) to retrieval, analysis, comparison, verification, and monitoring, with no obvious gaps for its intended use cases.

Resources