Skip to main content
Glama

Gtin

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?

The description explains the tool probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, which is a specific behavioral trait. It also describes the output format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description is consistent and adds context beyond them.

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 two sentences plus a parenthetical use-case note, all front-loaded and free of fluff. Every sentence provides essential information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and explains the probing process. For a 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage, it is complete.

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 is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' for narrative, which is additional meaning beyond the schema description for the 'entities' parameter.

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, probes with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic comparison) by specifying its competitive audit purpose.

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: does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?' This tells when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like individual ai_visibility_check calls.

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

All Gtin 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

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all handle query routing, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research blur the line between market scanning, edge detection, and fill-risk analysis. Several pairs (entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes, ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence) also overlap substantially.

Naming Consistency2/5

The tool names mix multiple conventions: verb_noun (validate_gtin, list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt), brand-prefixed groups (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx*), and bare nouns (entity_profile, recent_alerts). The server is named after GTIN/barcodes, yet most tools are branded Pipeworx or Polymarket, making the set feel incoherently named.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well over the threshold where a typical agent can comfortably navigate the surface, especially since they span unrelated domains: barcode validation, data lookups, prediction-market arbitrage, memory storage, subscriptions, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. The count reflects an overgrown grab bag rather than a well-scoped toolset.

Completeness2/5

There is no coherent domain to assess completeness against: for the server's apparent GTIN/barcode purpose, only gtin_check_digit and validate_gtin exist (and not even a lookup for product data by GTIN). For the broader Pipeworx platform hinted at by most tools, the surface is scattered, with deep coverage of prediction-market edges but arbitrary one-off utilities elsewhere.

Resources