Skip to main content
Glama

Hurricanes

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and 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?

The description is three sentences: first states the primary action, second explains the internal process, third provides a use case and return format. No wasted words, front-loaded with the key purpose. Well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's complexity (multi-entity comparison, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return format (ranked list with score/confidence/signal density) and the relationship to ai_visibility_check. It covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context that the first entity is treated as a 'subject' for narrative, but this is minor. It does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, probing each with ai_visibility_check and ranking results. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (general comparison) by specifying the competitive AI-marketing audit use case.

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 provides a clear use case example ('does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?') and implies usage for competitive audits. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context from sibling tools and the description itself offers sufficient guidance.

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

All Hurricanes 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but ask_pipeworx_beta is nearly identical to ask_pipeworx, and the presence of several meta-tools may cause slight confusion. Overall, an agent can differentiate most tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use lowercase_with_underscores and follow an action_domain pattern (e.g., validate_claim, scan_competitor_ai_presence). There is a mix of verb-noun and noun-verb, but the pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the higher end, but given the broad scope (finance, drugs, prediction markets, data retrieval, memory), the count is reasonable. However, the server name 'Hurricanes' suggests a narrower focus, making the count feel excessive for that domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data domains and includes meta-tools for discovery, grounded answers, and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no non-US company data), but overall the surface is comprehensive for a general-purpose data server.

Resources