Skip to main content
Glama

Hnb Hr

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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list with specific fields (score, confidence, signal density). No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 clearly states the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity). It also explains the internal mechanism (calling ai_visibility_check). This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds additional meaning by explaining that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' for narrative and the rest as competitors, which goes beyond the schema's description.

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, distinguishing it from single-entity tool ai_visibility_check and general compare_entities. It specifies the action (probe, rank, surface) and the output (ranked list).

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 explicitly mentions use for competitive AI-marketing audits and provides an example question. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the context of sibling tools and the description itself imply that it is for multi-entity comparison, not single-entity checks.

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

All Hnb Hr 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx), and deep_research and validate_claim also overlap with the ask_pipeworx family. The Polymarket tools are more distinct, but the query family creates real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix leading verbs (ask_, compare_, resolve_, scan_) with leading nouns (entity_profile, recent_changes, hnb_currency_rate) and there are multiple subfamily prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, hnb_*). All are snake_case, but no consistent verb_noun or noun pattern is followed.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the 25+ threshold, and the server name ('Hnb Hr') implies a narrow Croatian banking scope while the majority of tools are for a broad data research platform. Many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) inflate the count beyond what the apparent purpose needs.

Completeness3/5

The HNB currency functionality is complete (single and all rates, historical and latest), and the broader data platform offers good coverage via the ask_pipeworx router, subscriptions, and memory tools. However, there are gaps (no direct HNB news or historical archive tool, patents soft-fail, and out-of-domain tools like generate_llms_txt), and the mismatch between server name and content leaves the surface feeling incomplete.

Resources