Skip to main content
Glama

Foodish

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explaining the internal behavior of probing each entity and returning a ranked list with specific fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two clear sentences plus a parenthetical example. Front-loaded with the main action. Efficient without being overly brief.

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 but the description compensates by listing return fields (score, confidence, signal density). The 4 parameters and their roles are adequately covered.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds context about the first entity being treated as the subject, which is not in the schema, and explains the probe process.

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?

Clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, with specific actions: probe with ai_visibility_check, rank by score, surface most/least recognized. Distinguishes from the sibling ai_visibility_check by being multi-entity.

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?

Provides an explicit use case (competitive AI-marketing audits) with an example question. Implies when not to use (single entity check) but does not mention alternatives like compare_entities.

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

All Foodish 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that differentiate between similar-sounding tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research. The Polymarket-related tools each focus on a specific aspect (arbitrage, edges, tracking, fill risk, cross-venue spread), and memory/subscription tools are neatly separated.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern with underscores (e.g., ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, resolve_entity). However, there is some inconsistency: single-word names like 'forget' and 'random' mix with multi-word names, and a few names use different structures (e.g., bet_research as noun_noun, random_by_category as adjective_preposition).

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is on the high side for a single server, covering a broad range of functionalities from data queries to betting and memory. While the number might be justified by the platform's scope, it feels heavy, and the server name 'Foodish' suggests a narrower food-focused purpose, creating a mismatch.

Completeness4/5

As a general data platform, the tool set is comprehensive, covering queries, research, entity resolution, memory, subscriptions, and various analytical tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct editing or upload capabilities), but the core workflows are well-supported. However, the server name 'Foodish' implies food-related tools, which are minimal, so completeness relative to the name is poor.

Resources