Skip to main content
Glama

jokes

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized. It also specifies the return structure (score, confidence, signal density), which is absent from an output schema. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 long, each earning its place. The main action is front-loaded, and the use case is clearly stated. No filler or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, four parameters, and absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the input (entities), the process (probe, rank, surface), and the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). The sibling ai_visibility_check is contextually referenced, which aids understanding.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema, but it does clarify the overall mechanism (probing via ai_visibility_check). The schema already explains entities, models, context, and _apiKey thoroughly, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling ai_visibility_check by focusing on multi-entity comparison, and even names the probe mechanism. The example query ('does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?') further clarifies intent.

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 explicitly states the use case: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and provides an example. It implies that this tool is for multiple entities without explicitly saying 'use ai_visibility_check for a single entity,' but the contrast with the sibling tool is clear. It lacks explicit exclusion statements, so not a 5.

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

All jokes 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The server contains 4 joke-related tools and 31 tools from the Pipeworx data ecosystem, which are entirely unrelated. An agent cannot easily distinguish whether to use a joke tool or a data tool, causing extreme ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names within the joke subset (e.g., get_joke, search_jokes) and Pipeworx subset (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile) are individually consistent, but the overall set has no unified naming pattern or domain signal, making the server's purpose unclear.

Tool Count1/5

With 35 tools, the count is excessive for a jokes-themed server. Only 4 tools are joke-related; the remaining 31 belong to a completely different domain, making the tool count highly inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

The joke coverage (get, search, categories, flags) is minimal but functional. However, the server as a whole is a Frankenstein of unrelated domains, lacking a coherent surface. The overwhelming majority of tools are irrelevant to the server name.

Resources