Skip to main content
Glama

Funcheap

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral details: probes each entity, ranks by score, returns structure (score, confidence, signal density). 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 sentences, no filler. First sentence states core function, second provides use case and output description. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, but description specifies return fields (score, confidence, signal density). Covers purpose, input, output, and practical use case. Sufficient for agent selection.

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. Description adds meaning: first entity treated as 'subject', context disambiguates common names, models optional. Enhances understanding beyond schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('compare', 'probes', 'ranks') and clearly identifies the resource ('AI visibility across multiple entities'). It differentiates from siblings like 'ai_visibility_check' by emphasizing side-by-side 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?

Provides clear context for use ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question. Implicitly suggests when not to use (single entity check), but no explicit when-not or named alternatives.

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

All Funcheap 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are distinct (event search, subscriptions, memory, Polymarket arbitrage, data lookups), but ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence, bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage have overlapping purposes around competitive research and prediction-market edge-finding. The detailed descriptions disambiguate them, though an agent could confuse polymarket_edges with polymarket_arbitrage.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are mostly descriptive and consistent: search_events, event, categories, tags are aligned; ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, entity_profile follow a similar pattern. However, polymarket_* tools have an odd mix of `polymarket_arbitrage`, `polymarket_fill_risk`, and `polymarket_edge_tracker`, and discover_tools/recent_alerts/recent_changes are consistent, mostly. Naming is quite consistent overall with minor deviations.

Tool Count3/5

At 35 tools, the count is heavier than typical MCP servers, but it reflects a broad service (Funcheap data + Pipeworx data platform + pred markets). Still, plenty of tools serve the same primary purpose (polymarket_, ask_pipeworx variants) so some pruning would improve the surface.

Completeness4/5

The surface appears complete for its domain: search/retrieve events, category/tag navigation, memory, subscriptions (create/list/cancel/pull), data lookups, entity resolution, comparisons, profiles, edge scanning, and feedback. Minor gaps include no direct 'update' on events (but events are static), and no pricing fetch tool separate from event text, though body text covers it.

Resources