Skip to main content
Glama

launches

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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by mechanism and use case. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.

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 specifies return values ('ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity'). It covers multi-entity semantics, optional models, and shared context, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description reinforces the 'entities' semantics ('your brand + N competitors') and the Anthropic API key requirement, but does not add significant beyond-schema detail.

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's function: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It specifies the operation (probes with ai_visibility_check), the output (ranked list), and distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic 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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' with a concrete example query. It implies when to use (multi-entity comparison) versus ai_visibility_check for single entities, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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

All launches 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

Several tools have significantly overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all perform data retrieval, with beta currently identical to stable. The polymarket_* family and bet_research also blur boundaries, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions both handle discovery. Despite detailed descriptions, agents are likely to misselect among these overlapping options.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use snake_case, but conventions are mixed: some start with verbs (get_launch, search_launches, ask_pipeworx), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), and there are versioned suffixes (ask_pipeworx_beta). While each domain group has internal consistency, the overall set lacks a unified pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'launches'—only 4 tools (get_launch, get_past_launches, get_upcoming_launches, search_launches) actually relate to space launches. The remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains like prediction markets, company profiles, and memory, making the count inappropriate and diluting the server's focus.

Completeness2/5

For the claimed launch domain, the set provides only basic list/detail/search operations and lacks useful launch features like filtering by agency, date range, or launch site. More critically, the inclusion of 31 unrelated tools creates a fragmented surface with obvious dead ends—an agent expecting a launch-focused server would find most tools irrelevant.

Resources