Skip to main content
Glama

Ipaddress

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), description adds that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. It also notes the first entity is treated as subject for narrative. 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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with primary action and result. Structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

For a moderately complex tool with 4 parameters, full schema coverage, and descriptive annotations, the description covers the return format, internal behavior, and usage context. No gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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% with all four parameters described. The description adds extra context: first entity is treated as 'subject' for narrative and the rest as competitors, and omitting models defaults to workers-ai. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, ranks them, and surfaces most/least recognized. It uses specific verbs ('compare', 'probes', 'ranks') and distinguishes from sibling tool ai_visibility_check which likely operates on a single entity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description provides clear context: 'useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and an example question. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like ai_visibility_check for single entity checks, leaving the agent to infer.

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

All Ipaddress 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools serve similar querying purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) which could confuse an agent. However, detailed descriptions clarify differences, and some tools are very distinct (e.g., CIDR parsing, entity profile). Overlap is moderate but not severe.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, validate_claim, list_subscriptions) with underscores separating words. No mixing of styles like camelCase or abbreviations. Naming is clear and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a single server, covering areas as diverse as IP parsing, AI visibility, Polymarket betting, and SEC filings. This broad scope suggests the server tries to do too much, leading to a heavy and potentially unwieldy tool set.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers many domains (financials, prediction markets, IP tools, memory, subscriptions) but has notable gaps: no update for stored memories, limited subscription management (no modification), and some tools are marked as beta or deprecated. The set feels broad but not deep.

Resources