Skip to main content
Glama

Here

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare safety traits (readOnly, idempotent). The description adds behavioral detail: how it works (probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks, surfaces extremes). However, it does not mention potential cost/rate limit implications of multiple probes.

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 with no filler; the purpose and mechanism are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently describes the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). All key aspects are covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning beyond schema: clarifies 'entities' ordering (first is subject), explains 'context' use for disambiguation, and notes default model for 'models'.

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 uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities.

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?

It provides a clear use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example query, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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

All Here 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and suggest_questions all route questions to the same underlying data catalog, making it hard to pick the right one. The Polymarket-related tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also have overlapping discovery and analysis purposes.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools use descriptive snake_case, and the ask_pipeworx family shares a clear prefix, but the set mixes generic memory verbs (remember, recall, forget), brand-prefixed tools (here_*, pipeworx_*), and standalone names like bet_research and scan_dependency. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the whole server.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy for a single MCP server, and a large portion are meta-tools layered over the same 5,752-tool catalog (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions). The broad intentional scope explains the count, but the tool surface feels bloated and harder to navigate than it needs to be.

Completeness4/5

The domain is unusually broad—data querying, entity resolution, comparison, monitoring, memory, geolocation, prediction markets, dependency scanning—and the set covers most workflows end to end. Minor gaps exist, like no direct pipeworx:// citation fetcher and no update/list/delete pattern for entity profiles, but the core user journeys are well supported.

Resources