Skip to main content
Glama

Jpl Ssd

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

A4.4/5.0
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 detail: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns score, confidence, signal density per entity. Treats first entity as 'subject' for narrative.

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 front-loading purpose, then behavior, then use case, then output description. Every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague language.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, the description covers the tool's function, process, and output structure (score, confidence, signal density). It lacks explicit mention of return format details but is sufficient for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the 'entities' parameter: first entry is the subject for narrative, rest are competitors. No further detail needed for other parameters.

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, probes with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and surfaces which is most/least recognized. It distinguishes from sibling 'ai_visibility_check' by emphasizing multi-entity 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?

The description provides a clear usage scenario: 'useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and implies when to use vs. single-entity alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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

All Jpl Ssd 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap in purpose, especially the ask_pipeworx variants and the polymarket_* tools. An agent would struggle to distinguish between similar functions, increasing the risk of selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use inconsistent conventions: some are snake_case (close_approaches), some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt), and others mix styles (ask_pipeworx vs. deep_research). No clear pattern is maintained across the set.

Tool Count1/5

At 35 tools, the server is bloated and unfocused. The majority of tools are unrelated to the 'Jpl Ssd' domain, which only has 4 relevant tools. The count is far too high for the stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

The JPL SSD coverage is minimal (only 4 tools), missing key functionalities like detailed object queries or bulk downloads. The remaining tools cover unrelated domains, so the surface is both incomplete for its primary domain and cluttered with off-topic tools.

Resources