Skip to main content
Glama

Ieee Standards

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 indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral details: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. This is valuable beyond annotations, especially since there is no output schema.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words, and the structure is logical: purpose, process, use case, and return value.

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 parameter count 4, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and return structure. It covers the process (probe, rank, surface) and the output details (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). No gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' for narrative and the rest as competitors. It also provides context for the context parameter (disambiguate common names).

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 verb 'compare' and the resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity probe) and compare_entities (generic comparison) by specifying the competitive audit context and use of ai_visibility_check internally.

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 tool's use case is explicitly described: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' with an example question. It implies when to use this over ai_visibility_check (multiple entities needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the sibling context.

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

All Ieee Standards 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer factual questions with overlapping routing behavior, while polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research all surface prediction-market opportunities. Long descriptions help, but the boundaries between these clusters are genuinely unclear, and the three IEEE tools are buried in a sea of unrelated Pipeworx tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is predominantly snake_case with clear family prefixes like ieee_, ask_pipeworx_, and polymarket_, and most tools follow a readable verb_noun or noun_verb shape. Minor deviations exist (remember/recall/forget, bet_research, pipeworx_trending) but there is no camelCase/mixed-convention problem, so the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count1/5

A server named 'Ieee Standards' exposes 34 tools, yet only three of them (ieee_search, ieee_standard_search, ieee_article) actually serve that domain. The remaining 31 tools form a general Pipeworx data, prediction-market, memory, and subscription platform, which is an extreme scope mismatch for the stated server purpose.

Completeness4/5

For the IEEE lookup domain, the three IEEE tools cover the core read-only workflow: broad corpus search, standards-specific search, and full metadata retrieval by article number or DOI. Minor gaps exist (browsing by committee, revision/status history, full-text access) but those are workable or inherently restricted by IEEE's paywall.

Resources