Skip to main content
Glama

Htmlentities

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining it 'Probes each entity ... with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score' and returns a 'ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity'. This enriches understanding of internal mechanics and output. No contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded: two substantive sentences plus a brief illustrative query. Every sentence serves a purpose—function, process, use case, and output—without redundancy or filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format ('ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity'), the process, and the intended use case. It is complete for an AI agent to understand when and how to invoke this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are described. The description adds minimal extra value; the note about 'your brand + N competitors' aligns with the schema's 'first entry subject' but does not introduce new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side'. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing ai_visibility_check and mentioning ranking, making it clear this is a multi-entity composite tool unlike single-entity checkers.

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 clear context for use: 'competitive AI-marketing audits' with an example query. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for a single entity, use ai_visibility_check instead'), so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Htmlentities 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

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same routing core, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_fill_risk all target prediction-market edge detection. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent must read a lot of nuance to avoid selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but the convention is mixed: verb_noun names like encode_html and resolve_entity sit alongside bare verbs like remember and forget, and noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_changes, and polymarket_fill_risk. The ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* families are internally consistent, but there is no single predictable pattern across the whole set.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy set. The bloat is especially noticeable because the server is named Htmlentities yet only encode_html and decode_html relate to that purpose; the rest are unrelated Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities.

Completeness4/5

The Pipeworx surface is broadly complete: ask/grounded/deep_research/discover/suggest cover data access, entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes/validate_claim cover entity workflows, and subscriptions and memory have create/list/delete lifecycles. Minor gaps such as no update operation for subscriptions or memories are workable, and encode/decode fully covers the literal Htmlentities purpose.

Resources