Skip to main content
Glama

Greenhouse

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. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing that it internally calls ai_visibility_check for each entity and returns a ranked list with specific fields, without contradicting 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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: main action, process, and use case. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers return fields (score, confidence, signal density) and explains the internal mechanism. It could explicitly state sort order, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates that the first entity is the subject (already in schema description) and does not add new semantic insight beyond what the schema provides.

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 AI visibility' and the resource 'multiple entities', explicitly distinguishing from sibling ai_visibility_check by emphasizing side-by-side comparison and ranking.

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 concrete use case (competitive AI-marketing audits) and an example question, making it clear when to use the tool. It implicitly distinguishes from single-entity checks but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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

All Greenhouse 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but some overlap exists between research tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and bet_research, which could confuse an agent. The Greenhouse-specific tools are clearly separated by the 'greenhouse_' prefix, aiding disambiguation.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow snake_case but vary in style: some have a prefix like 'greenhouse_' or 'pipeworx_', others do not (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. deep_research). The verb-object pattern is inconsistent (e.g., 'generate_llms_txt' vs. 'entity_profile'), making naming less predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a single server, especially one named 'Greenhouse' which implies an ATS focus. The set aggregates multiple domains (ATS, data research, memory, prediction markets) without clear scoping, overwhelming the agent and reducing coherence.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx/data research subset is fairly complete with lookups, comparisons, verification, and subscriptions. However, the Greenhouse ATS subset lacks create/update/delete operations, leaving notable gaps. The mixed domains make overall completeness uneven.

Resources