Skip to main content
Glama

Kegg

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list with per-entity metrics. 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?

The description is two sentences plus a usage note, front-loading the main action. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It covers the key aspects, though it could mention error handling or what happens when entities are unrecognized. Still sufficient for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds critical context: first entity is treated as 'subject', models have defaults and prerequisites (e.g., Anthropic API key), and context disambiguates. This significantly enhances understanding 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Compare' and the resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'ai_visibility_check' by emphasizing side-by-side comparison and ranking.

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 explicit use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and a concrete example. It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when to avoid or provide alternative tool names beyond the mention of ai_visibility_check in the flow.

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

All Kegg 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly described distinct purposes, but several overlap: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all occupy neighboring query/discovery territory. The Polymarket and memory tool families, by contrast, are well differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but the set mixes verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-phrase names (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_alerts, polymarket_arbitrage) and brand prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the toolkit.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well beyond the heavy range, and the count is especially inappropriate because the server is named Kegg but only find, get_entry, and list_database relate to KEGG bioinformatics. The remaining 31 tools span unrelated domains (generic data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm scanning), making the scope feel like several products merged into one.

Completeness2/5

As a KEGG server, the surface is severely thin: three read-only tools with no pathway mapping, sequence search, or cross-reference utilities. The Pipeworx research and Polymarket betting subsystems are more complete, but their presence under a Kegg server makes the overall surface incoherent rather than complete.

Resources