Skip to main content
Glama

Fdic

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces most/least recognized, and returns a ranked list with specific fields. 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?

Two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose (compare and rank). The second sentence adds behavioral detail and use case. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description correctly explains return values (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It covers input parameters and behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or pagination, though these are less critical for a one-shot comparative tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds substantial meaning beyond schema: clarifies that the first entity in the array is treated as the 'subject' for narrative, that context disambiguates common names, and that _apiKey is passed to api.anthropic.com per probe.

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 specifies the verb 'Compare', resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities', and differentiates from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (general comparison). It clearly states the output: ranked list with score, confidence, signal density.

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 context ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question ('does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?'). It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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

All Fdic 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 have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions over the same underlying data catalog, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all analyze prediction-market opportunities. Tools like entity_profile, recent_changes, compare_entities, and resolve_entity also blur together for company research.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names are all snake_case but follow no consistent convention: some are bare verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe), some are noun phrases (fdic_failures, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), and some are verb_noun (fdic_get_institution, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim). Even the fdic_* family mixes noun-only and verb_noun styles.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many.' The count is inflated by redundant meta-tools (three ask_pipeworx variants, discover_tools, suggest_questions, multiple polymarket scanners) and unrelated purpose tools (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, ai_visibility_check) that do not belong in an FDIC-named server.

Completeness3/5

The universal ask_pipeworx router gives broad data coverage for almost any factual question, so core lookups are unlikely to dead-end. However, the FDIC-specific surface is thin (only five tools, missing branch/geography/history data), and the server's actual scope is so broad and mixed that no single domain is fully covered end-to-end.

Resources