Skip to main content
Glama

Entso E

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it internally calls ai_visibility_check, returns ranked list with score/confidence/signal density, and treats first entity as subject. No contradictions; adds meaningful behavioral context beyond 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, each sentence adds unique value (comparison, method, use case, return format). No redundancy or filler.

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 adequately explains return fields (score, confidence, signal density per entity) and entity range (2-8). Covers complexity of probing multiple models and ordering logic.

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% with descriptions. The description adds the important nuance that the first entity is the 'subject' for narrative and that models and _apiKey are related. This extra semantic information is valuable.

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 side-by-side, probes each with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and identifies most/least recognized. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic).

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 explicitly suggests use for competitive AI-marketing audits and provides a concrete question. While it doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for appropriate selection.

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

All Entso E 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ENTSO-E energy tools are clearly distinct, but the Pipeworx half contains overlapping query modes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research/validate_claim all route natural-language questions to the same underlying catalog. The Polymarket tools also blur edge detection, arbitrage, fill-risk, and persistence tracking, so an agent can easily select the wrong one.

Naming Consistency2/5

The five ENTSO-E tools use a clean snake_case noun pattern, but the rest mix brand verbs (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), bare memory verbs (remember, recall, forget), and polymorphic prefixes (polymarket_*), with inconsistent suffixes like beta, grounded, and kalshi_spread. There is no server-wide predictable naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is too many for the apparent scope, and the server name promises ENTSO-E while only 5 of 36 tools serve that domain. Even viewed as a general data utility, the count is heavy and includes duplicate query modes, though individual clusters do have some purpose.

Completeness3/5

For an ENTSO-E server, the five energy tools cover the basics (generation, load, price, flow, capacity) but omit common datasets like generation forecasts, balancing/imbalance prices, and outages. The unrelated Pipeworx tools add broad research, memory, and subscription coverage, but the overall surface feels like a general-purpose assistant with an energy add-on rather than a complete energy domain.

Resources