Skip to main content
Glama

Google_sheets

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds details: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. No contradictions; 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side'). Every sentence serves a purpose, no redundancy. Efficient and clear.

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, the description explicitly lists return values (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It covers the tool's essential behavior and parameters, making it complete for an agent to understand what to expect.

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%. The description adds meaning: 'entities' first entry treated as subject, 'context' disambiguates common names. While not exhaustive, it supplements the schema with useful context.

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 it compares AI visibility across multiple entities, probes each with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and identifies most/least recognized. 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 provides a clear use case: 'competitive AI-marketing audits' with an example question. It implies when to use (comparing multiple brands) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though siblings are available.

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

All Google_sheets 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are nearly identical: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly the same, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve overlapping research/query purposes. discover_tools and suggest_questions both act as discovery entry points, while the five polymarket tools differentiate primarily through intricate details that are easy to confuse.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed across the set: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim), noun_verb (sheets_append, sheets_create), noun_noun (polymarket_arbitrage, entity_profile), and bare verbs (forget, recall, subscribe). The sheets tools are internally consistent but the broader collection has no uniform pattern, with awkward names like pipeworx_trending and search_within.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. The Google Sheets portion accounts for only 5 tools, while the majority are highly specialized Pipeworx and Polymarket tools that could be consolidated or dramatically reduced. The count feels inflated relative to the advertised 'Google_sheets' server name and its actual core purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Google_sheets, the essential operations exist (create, read, write, append, list structure), but there is no delete/clear range tool and no way to add a new sheet to an existing spreadsheet. For the broader data/research scope, important lifecycles are missing (e.g., no direct way to write Pipeworx results into Sheets, no update for subscriptions, only cancel). The set falls short of fully covering either domain.

Resources