Skip to main content
Glama

Gdc

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. First observed

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. The description adds behavioral details: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. This adds value 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two sentences plus a return summary, front-loading the core purpose. It is efficient and well-structured, with no wasted words.

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?

With 4 parameters all documented in the schema, the description explains the output format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It could mention array size constraints or error conditions, but overall it's complete enough for the complexity.

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 3. The description adds meaning: the first entity is treated as 'subject' for narrative, context disambiguates common names, and models parameter explains supported values and API key requirement. This provides context beyond the 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 clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, probes each with ai_visibility_check, and returns a ranked list. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic 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 says it is useful for competitive AI-marketing audits and provides an example query. It implies when to use (comparing multiple brands) and implicitly distinguishes from single-entity tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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

All Gdc 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap in routing (differ only in answer mode), and the multiple Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_kalshi_spread) could cause confusion without careful reading of descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming mix of verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities) and noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes) patterns. Most use snake_case consistently, but the pattern is not uniform—some tools are commands, others are descriptors. Notable deviations like 'pipeworx_feedback' and 'pmc' are missing here but the sample shows inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

30 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a broad domain (data lookup, betting, AI, genomics, memory). Some tools could be merged (e.g., ask_pipeworx and its grounded variant), and the betting subdomain feels over-instrumented. The count is borderline between appropriate and heavy.

Completeness3/5

The server provides a wide range of operations for its diverse domains, but gaps exist: the genomics tools only offer basic metadata search (no download/analysis), and the betting tools lack historical data or backtesting. It covers common patterns but with notable omissions for a cohesive experience.

Resources