Skip to main content
Glama

Excuse

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. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description discloses that the tool probes each entity, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized, adding orchestration detail beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. Return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) is also stated.

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 main purpose, including a practical example and expected return fields. No redundant wording or repetition of schema/annotations.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and a description that explains purpose, use case, orchestration, and output shape, this is complete for a read-only comparison tool. No missing critical information like authentication or rate limits, but those are less relevant given the annotations.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameters. It mentions 'your brand + N competitors' matching the entities parameter, but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states (e.g., first entry as subject). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verb 'Compare' with resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities', clearly defining a side-by-side competitive comparison. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single-entity) and compare_entities (generic) by specifying it probes with ai_visibility_check and ranks by score.

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?

Description explicitly mentions usefulness for 'competitive AI-marketing audits' with a concrete example, and names ai_visibility_check as the underlying mechanism, implying this is the multi-entity version. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but context is clear enough.

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

All Excuse 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) all route to the same underlying 5,708-tool catalog with subtle behavioral differences that are easy to misselect. Entity-focused tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, scan_competitor_ai_presence) also overlap heavily in the data they return, making boundaries fuzzy.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the word-order convention is mixed: verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools) coexists with noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, recent_changes). The inconsistent reversal in excuse_generate versus generate_llms_txt further breaks the predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools the set is well past the well-scoped range, and several entries feel like padding: ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, while the seven Polymarket tools and five company-intelligence tools could each be consolidated into fewer distinct capabilities. The broad scope justifies a large surface, but this count makes the server difficult to navigate.

Completeness3/5

The core data-lookup lifecycle (resolve, fetch, ground, validate, research, compare) is well covered, and memory/subscription features round it out. Obvious gaps include no direct tool to read a pipeworx:// citation URI (despite deep_research referencing one), and the excuse_generate tool is an isolated one-off with no supporting tools in its domain.

Resources