Skip to main content
Glama

Hubspot

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. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds behavioral details: it probes multiple entities, treats first as subject, ranks by score, and returns confidence/signal density. No contradictions 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: first describes core action and process, second gives use case and output. No fluff, front-loaded, and highly informative.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and the probe mechanism. It lacks explanation of edge cases (e.g., invalid entity count) but schema covers that. Overall sufficient.

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% and schema descriptions are detailed (e.g., first entity as subject). The description does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 side-by-side using ai_visibility_check, ranks them, and returns metrics. It distinctly separates from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (likely different comparison).

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 gives a concrete use case (competitive AI-marketing audits) with an example question. It implies that for a single entity check one would use ai_visibility_check, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives. Still, the context is clear and helpful.

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

All Hubspot 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates or overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve overlapping query/discovery purposes. The polymarket tools and HubSpot tools are more distinct, but the set as a whole has fuzzy boundaries between many members.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent across the set: HubSpot tools use an hs_ prefix, Pipeworx tools mostly use bare verbs (ask_pipeworx, recall, forget), and other tools mix styles (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt, polymarket_edges). The hs_* subset is consistent, but overall there is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is too many for the apparent scope, especially since the server is named 'Hubspot' but only 6 of the tools are HubSpot-specific. A large portion of the catalog covers unrelated Pipeworx data access, prediction markets, memory, and npm scanning, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The HubSpot portion of the tool set is read-only: it can get, list, and search companies/contacts/deals, but has no create, update, or delete operations, leaving obvious lifecycle gaps. If the intended domain is actually Pipeworx/data research, the HubSpot tools seem like an unrelated afterthought, so the surface is incomplete for either interpretation.

Resources