Skip to main content
Glama

Emdb

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds value by explaining it probes with ai_visibility_check, ranks, and returns specific fields (score, confidence, signal density).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main action. Second sentence is a bit long but still clear and efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return value (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Also mentions underlying tool and use case. Adequate for 4-param tool with 1 required.

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. Description does not add significant meaning beyond schema; mentions 'entities' but schema already describes it well.

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 compares AI visibility across multiple entities, probes with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized. It distinguishes itself from sibling like compare_entities by focusing on AI presence.

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 for competitive AI-marketing audits with an example question. Does not explicitly say when not to use, 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 Emdb 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 tool clusters have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (the beta is explicitly the same right now); five polymarket_* tools all surface opportunity/edge information; entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all cover company research. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent can easily misselect between similar tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use consistent snake_case and are descriptive, with clear prefix patterns for prediction-market tools (polymarket_*) and the router variants (ask_pipeworx_*). Some names are verb-noun while others are noun-phrases, but the convention is uniformly underscore-separated, with no camelCase or other mixing.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a coherent server, and the scope is sprawled across EMDB access, Pipeworx data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and miscellaneous utilities. Even though each tool has a defined role, the sheer breadth and number make it feel like several servers' worth of functionality crammed into one.

Completeness2/5

The server's name suggests it should be focused on EMDB, but only two tools (get_map, search_maps) cover that domain — no browsing, filtering, or extended metadata beyond basic fields. Meanwhile, the bulk of the surface is devoted to unrelated Pipeworx/platform features. For the stated purpose, the coverage is severely incomplete.

Resources