Skip to main content
Glama

hackernews

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by explaining that it probes each entity, ranks by score, and returns specific fields (score, confidence, signal density), which goes beyond the annotation-only safety profile.

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 concise sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the main action, then adds behavioral detail and output format, earning its place efficiently.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It covers purpose, process, and output, though it does not mention edge cases or API key requirements, which are covered in the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add nuance to parameters beyond what the schema already includes; it merely describes the process using the parameters. Thus, no additional semantic value is provided.

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's function with the verb 'Compare' and specific resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It explicitly mentions probing with ai_visibility_check, distinguishing it from the single-entity sibling tool, and clarifies its competitive comparison 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 clear use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') with an illustrative example, and implies it is the multi-entity alternative to ai_visibility_check. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with compare_entities.

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

All hackernews 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: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, and deep_research also overlaps with them. The Polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also have fuzzy boundaries. An agent could easily pick the wrong meta-tool or duplicate functionality.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (get_item, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), some are noun_noun (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), some are adjective_noun (deep_research, recent_alerts), and a few are single verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe). This is readable but not a consistent convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, this is far too many for a server named 'hackernews'. The bulk of the tools concern Pipeworx data research, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions — unrelated to the server's apparent purpose. Many of these could be split into separate servers, and the HN-specific functionality would be better served by a focused set of ~5-8 tools.

Completeness2/5

For the Hacker News domain implied by the server name, the surface is incomplete: there are read-only tools (search, top stories, item/comments) but no write functionality (submit, comment, vote) and no user profile access. The broader data-research capabilities are fairly comprehensive, but that does not rescue the server's coherence given its stated name.

Resources