Skip to main content
Glama

Kolada Se

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds transparency by explaining that it internally calls ai_visibility_check for each entity, and describes the output structure (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). 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?

Two efficient sentences. Front-loaded with purpose and method. No redundancy or waste. Every sentence adds value.

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 fully explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It also describes the internal probe mechanism. For a 4-parameter, moderate-complexity tool, this is complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning: 'first entry treated as subject for narrative', array size limit 2-8, default model, and context disambiguation. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 uses specific verb 'compare' and resource 'AI visibility', clearly differentiating from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic). It details the process: probes each entity, ranks by score, surfaces most/least recognized.

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 states it is 'useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and provides a concrete example question. It implicitly suggests using ai_visibility_check for single-entity checks, but does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives. The context from sibling tools helps, but the description could be more direct.

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

All Kolada Se 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical when no routing candidate is active), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual questions through the same underlying router. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) has substantial purpose overlap that requires reading long descriptions to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Mostly snake_case, and the pipeworx_/polymarket_/ask_ prefixes give some structure, but conventions are mixed: some tools are verb_noun (list_municipalities, get_data), some are bare verbs (forget, recall, remember), and some are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research, recent_changes). The inconsistent prefixing across meta-tools (ask_, deep_, entity_, scan_, validate_) makes the surface feel less predictable than it could be.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is on the heavy side, but the bigger problem is that the server name 'Kolada Se' matches only 4 tools (search_kpi, list_municipalities, list_org_units, get_data), while the other 31 tools belong to unrelated domains (Pipeworx data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility). This is a severe scope mismatch that makes the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

For the Kolada domain named by the server, the surface is minimal: you can search KPIs, list municipalities, list org units, and fetch single-KPI data, but there is no multi-year bulk fetch, cross-municipality comparison, or unit-level data retrieval. The broader Pipeworx/prediction-market surface is fairly feature-complete, but it is not what the server name implies, so the set as a whole leaves the apparent domain thinly covered.

Resources