Skip to main content
Glama

Leadconnector

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks results, returns score/confidence/signal density. Mentions API key requirement for Anthropic model. 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?

Four sentences, efficient and well-structured. Front-loaded with main action, then details. No filler.

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 no output schema, description adequately explains return format. Covers probing mechanism, ranking, and API key usage. Sufficient for agent to understand tool's capabilities and outputs.

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%, but description adds meaning: explains 'entities' first entry treated as subject, 'context' is shared across probes, and 'models' default behavior. Enriches understanding beyond 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?

Description clearly states it compares AI visibility across multiple entities, ranks them by score, and surfaces most/least recognized. It distinguishes from sibling 'ai_visibility_check' by being a side-by-side comparison tool.

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?

Explicitly says it's useful for competitive AI-marketing audits and gives an example question. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but context is clear.

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

All Leadconnector 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 have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, or bet_research and polymarket_edges. The mix of CRM, data, and betting tools creates confusion about which tool to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx) with prefixed names (leadconnector_*) and no clear pattern. Some names are vague (forget, remember) while others are specific.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the set feels overstuffed for a server named 'Leadconnector'. Many tools are unrelated to CRM (e.g., Polymarket, Pipeworx), and the CRM subset is too small to justify the count.

Completeness2/5

For the Leadconnector CRM domain, only basic read operations are provided; missing create, update, delete for contacts, campaigns, and opportunities. The non-CRM tools are comprehensive but don't match the server's name.

Resources