Skip to main content
Glama

Ens

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by explaining the internal mechanism (probes with ai_visibility_check), ranking logic, output format (score, confidence, signal density), and treatment of the first entity as the subject. 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 concise (~50 words), well-structured: purpose, mechanism, use case, and output. Every sentence is relevant with no wasted 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the output (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity). It covers the key behavior, parameter roles, and internal dependency (ai_visibility_check), making it complete for this tool's complexity.

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 minor nuance: the 'entities' first entry is treated as the subject, and 'models' defaults to workers-ai. This slightly enhances understanding but doesn't significantly surpass schema detail.

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: comparing AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, probing with ai_visibility_check, ranking, and surfacing most/least recognized. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (general 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 context ('useful for competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question. It implies the tool is for multiple entities but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., use ai_visibility_check for a single entity).

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

All Ens 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly defined, distinct purpose. Even closely related tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are differentiated by use case (casual vs. high-stakes), and the prediction market tools each cover a specific function (research, edge detection, arbitrage, fill risk, tracking, cross-venue spreads). Detailed descriptions eliminate ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), but a few use noun_noun or adjective_noun forms (e.g., entity_profile, recent_alerts). The naming is generally predictable and readable, with minor deviations from a strict pattern.

Tool Count3/5

The server offers 32 tools, which is above the typical 3-15 range for a well-scoped server. However, the vast domain (financials, prediction markets, news, memory, subscriptions, etc.) justifies the count. It is on the heavy side but still manageable with clear organization.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for the apparent domain: exploration (discover_tools, suggest_questions), identifier resolution (resolve_entity), data retrieval (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim), prediction market analysis (full suite), memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts), and extras (ENS, dependency scan, AI visibility). No obvious gaps exist.

Resources