Skip to main content
Glama

Ine Pt

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?

Description explains the tool probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks results, and surfaces most/least recognized. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (which already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). No contradictions.

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?

Concise, well-structured description: core function, process, usage context, and output summary. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly states the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Given moderate complexity and complete annotations, description is fully adequate.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra semantics (e.g., first entity is the subject). The schema already explains all parameters adequately.

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 resource 'AI visibility' across multiple entities, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (general 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?

Describes use case for competitive AI-marketing audits with an example question. While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the context implies it is for batch comparisons, which differentiates it from single-entity alternatives.

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

All Ine Pt 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions. However, a few tools like 'discover_tools' and 'suggest_questions' both serve exploratory functions and could cause confusion. Similarly, 'ask_pipeworx' and 'deep_research' overlap in scope but are differentiated by depth and account requirements. Overall, an agent can typically pick the right tool, but a few pairs require careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and are generally readable, but the convention varies: some are verb_noun (e.g., 'resolve_entity'), some are noun_noun (e.g., 'entity_profile'), and a few are just verbs (e.g., 'remember', 'forget'). The 'polymarket_' prefix helps group related tools, but the diversity in patterns slightly reduces predictability.

Tool Count4/5

With 32 tools, the set is slightly large but justified by the wide range of functionality: data querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and utilities. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and the count is not excessive given the server's role as a gateway to thousands of data sources. It feels well-scoped for its domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most essential operations: querying data, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, and onboarding. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a generic subscription for all data changes or a way to list all available data packs directly. However, 'discover_tools' partially addresses this. Overall, the surface is comprehensive for the server's purpose.

Resources