Skip to main content
Glama

Gitlab

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it internally calls ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns score, confidence, and signal density per entity—beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions with 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by mechanism and use case. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, process, and outcome. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explicitly states the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity). It also covers the internal probe step and gives a concrete use case. Given the tool's moderate complexity and annotations, this is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are described. The description does not add much beyond schema; it rephrases the 'entities' semantics (first entry as subject, rest competitors) which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Compare'), resource ('AI visibility across multiple entities'), and scope ('side-by-side'), distinguishing it from the sibling ai_visibility_check which checks a single entity. It also explains the mechanics: probes each entity, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized.

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 provides a clear use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') with an illustrative question, and implies it is for multi-entity comparison. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to judge applicability.

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

All Gitlab 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, notably ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded which are near-identical in function. The polymarket_* family also has several members with closely related scopes, and the large number of data-query tools makes it hard to choose the right one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (list_subscriptions, validate_claim), others are noun-first (entity_profile, bet_research), and proper-noun prefixes like pipeworx_ and polymarket_ are used liberally. The gitlab_* tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern, but the rest of the set is mixed.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given that only 5 are GitLab-related while the rest are a sprawling data-access toolkit. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx variants), and the count exceeds what is reasonable for a focused GitLab server.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Gitlab, the coverage is severely incomplete: only list/get operations exist for projects, issues, and MRs, with no create, update, or delete capabilities. The broader data tools are more complete, but the nominal purpose of the server is clearly not fulfilled.

Resources