Skip to main content
Glama

Gaming Feeds

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 indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent. Description adds that it internally calls ai_visibility_check, ranks scores, and returns specific fields, which is valuable behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant text. 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?

Despite no output schema, description fully explains returned data (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Also mentions internal call, making it complete for agent understanding.

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 covers all parameters (100%), but description adds context: first entity is treated as 'subject', context disambiguates common names. Provides extra meaning 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?

Clearly states it compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized. Distinct from siblings like single-entity ai_visibility_check or generic compare_entities.

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 explicit use case: competitive AI-marketing audits. Implies when to use vs single-entity check or other comparison tools, though does not explicitly list exclusions.

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

All Gaming Feeds 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters of near-duplicates force careful reading: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap heavily; the five polymarket tools share edge-detection and arbitrage territory; and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are easy to confuse. discover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending also compete as discovery/onboarding entry points.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, so there is surface consistency, but the structural pattern is mixed: verb_noun (list_feeds, read_feed, resolve_entity), noun_verb (ai_visibility_check), noun_noun (entity_profile, polymarket_fill_risk), and bare verbs (remember, forget). Prefixes like ask_pipeworx and polymarket create local order, but no server-wide naming convention holds.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools for a server named 'Gaming Feeds' is heavily over-scoped; only list_feeds, read_feed, and fetch_feed actually serve that purpose. The remaining ~25 tools constitute an unrelated Pipeworx data platform covering queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, making the count feel like a bundled mega-server rather than a focused toolset.

Completeness3/5

For the nominal gaming-feed domain, list/read/fetch plus keyword filtering covers basic consumption, but there is no cross-feed search, feed management, or feed-specific subscription support (subscribe only handles SEC, Polymarket, and FRED streams). The broader data/research surface is comprehensive internally, but that completeness belongs to a different server's purpose.

Resources