Skip to main content
Glama

F1

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns score, confidence, signal density. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 with zero wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and action, the second provides context and output details. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description specifies the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Parameter count is 4, all documented in schema. The description covers the essential behavioral aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no new semantics beyond summarizing the overall behavior. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not improve it.

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 compares AI visibility across multiple entities, ranks them, and identifies most/least recognized. It uses specific verbs and nouns (compare, AI visibility, entities) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single probe) and compare_entities (generic 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 use cases: competitive AI-marketing audits and gives an example. It implies when to use (multi-entity comparison) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond mentioning ai_visibility_check. Still, context is clear.

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

All F1 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

Several tools are near-clones: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded differ mainly by mode, and deep_research overlaps with all of them. The five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research also blur together, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions both serve a 'what can I do' purpose.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are readable snake_case, but the convention is mixed: verb-first (get_current_standings, validate_claim, scan_dependency), noun-first (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), and bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe). The F1 tools follow a clean get_* pattern that doesn't extend to the rest of the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive, especially since the server is named 'F1' but only 4 tools relate to F1. The set could be consolidated substantially: three ask_pipeworx variants, multiple overlapping polymarket scanners, and two tool-discovery helpers all add weight without clear scope.

Completeness2/5

The F1 side is thin: no qualifying results, constructor standings, lap data, circuits, or driver search by name. The Pipeworx half is broad, but it belongs to a different domain, leaving the overall surface feeling incomplete for either purpose.

Resources