Skip to main content
Glama

Epa Regulations

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, which is consistent with the description. The description adds behavioral context: it internally calls ai_visibility_check for each entity, treats the first entity as the subject, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. 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 three sentences, each serving a clear role: purpose, mechanism, and use case/output. No filler words or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and remains highly readable.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, but strong annotations), the description explains the output format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and the special treatment of the first entity. It lacks details on error handling or limits but is sufficient for typical usage.

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

Parameters4/5

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 value beyond the schema for the 'entities' parameter by specifying that the first entry is treated as the 'subject' for narrative. This semantic nuance helps agents correctly structure the input. Other parameters are briefly mentioned but not elaborated; still, the addition justifies a 4.

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: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It specifies the verb (compare), resource (AI visibility), and actions (probes, ranks, surfaces). It differentiates from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single probe) and compare_entities (generic comparison), making its unique value evident.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' with an example question. It implies that for a single entity, one should use ai_visibility_check (since this tool probes multiple). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, which would have earned a 5.

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

All Epa Regulations 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The server includes many overlapping tools (e.g., multiple ask_pipeworx variants, epa_regulation vs. epa_search vs. discover_tools). More critically, the tool set covers vastly different domains (Polymarket bets, npm packages, AI visibility, memory storage) alongside EPA regulations, making it hard for an agent to distinguish purposes.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use a mix of styles: underscore (epa_regulation, ask_pipeworx), camelCase (deep_research, suggest_questions), and verb phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent pattern is followed across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a server named 'Epa Regulations'. The vast majority are unrelated to EPA regulations (e.g., Polymarket, npm scanning, memory functions), making the scope mismatched. A focused server should have fewer, domain-specific tools.

Completeness1/5

For a server claiming to be about EPA regulations, only two tools (epa_regulation, epa_search) are directly relevant. The rest are from unrelated domains, leaving severe gaps in expected functionality like rule updates, compliance checks, or cross-referencing with other environmental data.

Resources