Skip to main content
Glama

Facebook_ads

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. No contradictions and provides useful behavioral context.

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; first describes action, second gives use case and output. No 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 missing output schema, description sufficiently explains output format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and input requirements. Complete for this tool's complexity.

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%; description adds context about first entity being the subject and clarifies _apiKey purpose. Provides value beyond schema.

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 it compares AI visibility across multiple entities, uses ai_visibility_check, and ranks by score. It distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check which is for single entities.

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?

Explicitly suggests use for competitive AI-marketing audits with an example. Implicitly contrasts with single-entity probes but does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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

All Facebook_ads 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
Disambiguation4/5

The 11 fb_* Facebook tools are clearly separated by resource (account vs campaign vs adset) and action (list vs get vs create), and the Pipeworx research tools each have distinct roles (router, grounded, profile, compare, research). However, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and deep_research overlap in routing/fan-out behavior, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-identical in purpose, creating some ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

The 11 fb_* tools follow a consistent fb_verb_noun pattern (except fb_get_campaign vs fb_list_*), but the remaining 25+ tools mix verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and generic names (forget, recall, remember). Pipeworx tools use verb_noun mostly consistently (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, resolve_entity) but the overall set blends two naming cultures without a unifying prefix or pattern.

Tool Count3/5

36 tools is on the heavy side for one server. The Facebook ads domain only needs ~11 tools, while the rest are a sprawling Pipeworx research/meta platform (memory, subscription, prediction-market, web-tooling, AI-visibility) that feels like several servers merged into one. Each area is internally coherent, but as a single MCP server the count is bloated.

Completeness4/5

The Facebook ads surface covers list accounts/campaigns/adsets and read campaigns/insights, but notably lacks create/update/delete operations for campaigns and adsets, so the ad-management workflow has dead ends. The Pipeworx research side is extremely complete for data lookup (router, grounded, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, verification), though the memory/subscription tools introduce a separate domain that is only thinly supported.

Resources