Skip to main content
Glama

Fred

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it internally probes each entity with 'ai_visibility_check', ranks by score, and returns a list with score, confidence, signal density. No contradictions; it provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then explains the process, use case, and output. No redundant or irrelevant information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 4 parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description explains the tool's operation (calling ai_visibility_check, ranking, output fields). It is sufficient for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns, though it could be more detailed on output semantics or error handling.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that the first entity in 'entities' is treated as the 'subject' for narrative. This goes beyond the schema definition, aiding correct parameter usage.

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, uses 'ai_visibility_check' per entity, ranks results, and surfaces most/least recognized. It distinguishes from sibling 'ai_visibility_check' (single entity) by emphasizing multi-entity comparison.

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 gives a use case (competitive AI-marketing audits) and an example question. It implies when to use: for comparing multiple entities. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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

All Fred 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that differentiate even closely related tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded. The FRED and Polymarket tool sets are well-organized with unique responsibilities. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun or noun_verb pattern in snake_case (e.g., resolve_entity, compare_entities, list_subscriptions). However, a few tools like 'forget', 'remember', and 'recall' deviate by being single verbs, and 'pipeworx_feedback' uses a noun_verb format. Overall, the naming is predictable but has minor inconsistencies.

Tool Count4/5

With 37 tools covering a broad domain (economic data, prediction markets, company profiles, subscriptions, memory, etc.), the count is reasonable and justifiable. It is slightly above the typical sweet spot but not excessive, and each tool serves a specific purpose. The scope is broad enough to warrant this many tools.

Completeness5/5

The server provides a comprehensive surface for its domain, including CRUD-like operations for data querying (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), specialized tools for prediction markets (arbitrage, edges), and utilities (memory, subscriptions). Obvious operations like entity resolution, comparison, and change tracking are present. No critical gaps are apparent for the stated purpose of querying structured data and engaging with prediction markets.

Resources