Skip to main content
Glama

Feodotracker

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint (all positive). The description adds that it 'probes each entity with ai_visibility_check' and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. This goes beyond annotations, 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?

Three sentences covering purpose, method, and use case. No filler, front-loaded, efficient. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Moderate complexity (multiple entities, ranking). Schema covers all parameters. Description explains output (ranked list with attributes). Annotations cover safety. No output schema, but description provides sufficient return info. Complete enough.

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 3. The description adds context: 'entities' are brands/competitors, first is subject, rest competitors. This enhances understanding beyond the schema, justifying a 4.

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, probes each entity, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized. It provides a concrete use case and distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic).

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 explicitly says 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and gives an example. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context with siblings and the comparative nature imply alternatives (e.g., ai_visibility_check for single entity). Clear enough for an agent.

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

All Feodotracker 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

Multiple tools occupy the same conceptual space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all answer 'what can this server do' or 'look this up' in overlapping ways. The Polymarket suite (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) and the memory trio (remember, recall, forget) also create boundary confusion despite long descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mixed bag: some tools are imperative verbs (check_ip, forget, remember, validate_claim), some are bare nouns or adjectives (list, recent, aggressive), and many are noun compounds (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). No consistent verb_noun or domain-prefix pattern holds across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly named Feodotracker, whose core blocklist surface is only four tools (list, recent, aggressive, check_ip). The rest is a sprawling collection of unrelated Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, subscription, and utility features that would be better split into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

The core blocklist domain is minimally covered: you can list, filter by family/status, check an IP, and see recent additions, which covers basic read-only use. However, there are notable gaps and dead ends, such as no historical lookup beyond recent hours and no per-IP detail beyond membership, while the bundled Pipeworx/Polymarket features are thorough but make the overall surface feel scattershot.

Resources