Skip to main content
Glama

Google_search_console

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). Description adds how it probes via ai_visibility_check, ranks, and returns score/confidence/signal density per entity, disclosing behavior 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?

Three sentences: purpose, mechanism, use case with output details. Front-loaded, no fluff.

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?

With no output schema, description fully explains return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Covers all parameters and their roles. Complete for the tool's 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions. Description adds value by specifying the first entity is 'subject' for narrative and rest are competitors, and default model is 'workers-ai'.

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 entities side-by-side, distinct from sibling ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic). Uses specific verb 'compare' and resource 'AI visibility', with details on ranking and scores.

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 competitive AI-marketing audits and example question. Implies single-entity checks via ai_visibility_check, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives list. Still guides usage well.

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

All Google_search_console 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set has several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, multiple polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) occupy the same prediction-market space, and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates. A few tools (memory triad, gsc_* calls) are crisp, but the boundaries between the meta-research tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, validate_claim) are not obvious enough to prevent misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mixed bag: some tools follow snake_case verb_noun (gsc_list_sites, resolve_entity, search_within), others are lowercased concatenations (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and several are bare nouns or adjectives (recent_alerts, forget, recall, process). There is no consistent verb style or separator convention across the set.

Tool Count1/5

35 tools is already heavy, but the bigger problem is that only 4 of them (gsc_list_sites, gsc_list_sitemaps, gsc_inspect_url, gsc_search_analytics) relate to the server's stated Google Search Console purpose. The remaining 31 are a sprawling Pipeworx data/prediction-market/memory toolkit, making the count wildly disproportionate to the apparent scope.

Completeness1/5

For a Google Search Console server, the surface is severely incomplete: it can list sites/sitemaps, inspect URLs, and query analytics, but lacks sitemap submission, property add/remove, URL removal/access control, and other core GSC operations. Conversely, the 31 off-domain tools make the domain itself incoherent — an agent cannot tell what this server is actually for.

Resources