Skip to main content
Glama

Emsc

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it probes each entity using 'ai_visibility_check', ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized, which are useful behavioral details beyond the 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 concise (3-4 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (comparing multiple entities) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient information about the ranked list (score, confidence, signal density). It covers the essential aspects for correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning: it explains that the first entity in the array is treated as the 'subject', that models default to 'workers-ai' if omitted, and that context is shared across probes. This significantly aids understanding.

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 side-by-side, using the verb 'compare' and specifying the resource (AI visibility). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'ai_visibility_check' by focusing on multiple entities and ranking.

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 clear context for competitive AI-marketing audits and implies use when comparing multiple entities. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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

All Emsc 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Multiple tools overlap: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and the five prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker) cover adjacent tasks that require careful reading. However, descriptions are unusually explicit about when to prefer each, and non-overlapping domains (memory, subscriptions, earthquakes, npm) are clearly separated.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are snake_case with a mostly verb-first pattern (ask_, compare_, discover_, generate_, list_, scan_, search_, validate_), making the surface predictable. Minor deviations like deep_research, entity_profile, and single-word verbs (remember, recall, forget) break the pattern slightly, but each family is internally consistent.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' and several could be consolidated — ask_pipeworx_beta is redundant today, and the prediction-market suite could fold into 2-3 tools. The count reflects a genuinely wide data platform with meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, ask_pipeworx) already covering discovery, so the surface feels heavy for an agent to triage.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are well covered: querying (ask_pipeworx, grounded, deep_research), research profiles (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes), input resolution (resolve_entity), fact-checking (validate_claim), memory lifecycle, and subscription lifecycle all have complete loops. Minor gaps exist, notably no tool to fetch a pipeworx:// citation URI directly (search_within expects already-fetched text), and some one-off tools like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency feel bolted on.

Resources