Skip to main content
Glama

Entur

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description discloses internal probing via ai_visibility_check, ranking, and output fields (score, confidence, signal density). Annotations already show readOnly, idempotent, safe; description adds valuable behavioral details without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences plus a usage example. Front-loaded with primary action. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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, description specifies return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Explains internal mechanism and when to use. Fully sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%. Description adds meaning beyond schema: first entity is 'subject' for narrative, rest competitors; mentions internal tool call; explains all param roles (models, apiKey, context) in context of comparison.

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?

Description clearly states 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side' with specific verb+resource. Differentiates from sibling 'ai_visibility_check' (single entity) and 'compare_entities' (general) by focusing on AI presence 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?

Includes explicit use case: 'competitive AI-marketing audits' and example question. Implicitly guides against single-entity checks (use ai_visibility_check). No explicit when-not, but adequate for context.

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

All Entur 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

Although many tools are individually well-described, there are several overlapping clusters: three ask_pipeworx variants, multiple polymarket edge/arbitrage tools, and AI-visibility checks vs their competitor-comparison wrapper. An agent can easily pick the wrong one because the boundaries (beta vs stable, grounded vs routed, edge vs arbitrage) are subtle despite the verbose descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is consistently snake_case and mostly readable, so naming is not chaotic. However, the pattern is mixed: some tools use entur_/polymarket_/pipeworx_ prefixes, others are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and some are noun phrases (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending). The ask_pipeworx family also doesn't follow the pipeworx_ prefix convention used by neighboring tools.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the healthy range for a focused MCP server, and only three tools relate to the Entur transport domain implied by the server name. The other 31 tools form a separate, broad data/prediction-market product that appears bolted on, making the count inappropriate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

The Entur transport subset has stops search, departures, and journey planning, but misses common public-transport needs such as disruptions, service alerts, and fare/ticket information. The broader tool set is extensive but lacks a single coherent domain to be complete against, leaving the overall surface scattered and hard to trust as an integrated whole.

Resources