Skip to main content
Glama

Fas

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the tool probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) 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?

The description is concise (two sentences plus a parenthetical) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value, including the clarifying example. No redundant or extraneous text.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly lists the return fields (score, confidence, signal density). It covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and behavior adequately for its complexity. Minor omissions (e.g., error handling) are acceptable given good annotations.

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 by clarifying that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' and the rest as competitors, and provides examples for context and models parameters. This gives extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 side-by-side, using a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('AI visibility across multiple entities'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing the sub-tool ai_visibility_check and contrasting with single-entity probing, and gives a concrete use case for competitive AI-marketing audits.

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 clear usage context ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question, implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like ai_visibility_check for single entity scans.

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

All Fas 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. deep_research vs. validate_claim). However, a few pairs like ask_pipeworx_beta vs. ask_pipeworx and validate_claim vs. ask_pipeworx_grounded have overlapping roles, even though descriptions do differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently, and many follow a verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, subscribe). Some exceptions like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and pipeworx_trending break the strict verb_noun pattern but remain readable and stylistically uniform.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, this is above the typical 'well-scoped' range and exceeds the 25-tool threshold for heavy servers. However, the server covers a very broad domain (financial data, prediction markets, agriculture, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions), which partially justifies the count, but it still feels bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers all major workflows: data querying (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), entity resolution and comparison, prediction-market analysis, agricultural data (FAS tools), memory (remember/recall/forget), and subscription management (subscribe/unsubscribe/list). The only minor gap is lack of direct write/update operations for external data, but that's not expected for a read-heavy platform.

Resources