Skip to main content
Glama

Horizons Nasa

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses the probing process (ai_visibility_check), ranking, and return fields (score, confidence, signal density). Adds context beyond annotations (e.g., first entity as subject). No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences plus a parenthetical example. Front-loaded with core purpose; every word earns its place. No redundancy.

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?

Covers return structure (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) despite no output schema. Adequate for the tool's complexity and provided annotations.

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%, but description adds extra semantics: first entity treated as subject, shared context disambiguates, optional API key for Anthropic. Adds meaningful context beyond schema.

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 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side' with specific actions (probe, rank, surface). It distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (general comparison) by focusing on AI visibility audits.

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?

Provides concrete use case 'competitive AI-marketing audits' with an example question. Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives but sufficiently implies context.

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

All Horizons Nasa 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that differentiate overlapping capabilities (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs bet_research). No two tools appear redundant; even similar prediction-market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) have specific scopes.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case (e.g., ai_visibility_check, compare_entities, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_kalshi_spread). Single-word exceptions (ephemeris, lookup, observers, recall, remember, vectors) are common short verbs and do not break the pattern. No mixing of camelCase or other conventions.

Tool Count4/5

35 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the server is a comprehensive data platform covering multiple domains (SEC, FDA, FRED, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback). The count is justified given the breadth; it feels slightly heavy but not bloated or redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for a data/research platform: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), entity resolution (resolve_entity), lookups (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile), comparison (compare_entities), validation (validate_claim), prediction-market operations (polymarket_*), memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts), and meta/feedback (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending). No obvious gaps for typical workflows.

Resources