Skip to main content
Glama

Legislation Uk

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the internal mechanism (probes each entity with 'ai_visibility_check'), ranking logic, and return details (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?

Three sentences: purpose, procedure, use case, and output summary. Front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence is necessary and efficient. No fluff.

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?

While no output schema exists, the description covers the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). For a 4-parameter tool, it adequately explains inputs, behavior, and output. Could be slightly more precise about score range, but sufficient for competent use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (first entity treated as subject) but does not significantly elaborate on parameters beyond the schema descriptions. It meets the baseline expectation.

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 verbs ('Compare', 'Probes', 'ranks') and clearly identifies the resource ('AI visibility') and scope ('multiple entities side-by-side'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'ai_visibility_check' by emphasizing multi-entity 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 explicitly suggests a use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and provides an example question. It implies when to use (comparing multiple entities) but does not state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the implied single-entity case.

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

All Legislation Uk 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
Disambiguation2/5

The legislation-specific tools are distinct, but the server bundles dozens of unrelated Pipeworx/prediction-market/AI-visibility tools, making the set's purpose unclear. Several near-identical pairs exist: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and ai_visibility_check overlaps heavily with scan_competitor_ai_presence. An agent would struggle to know which tool is the right entry point.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is mixed: snake_case dominates, but camelCase appears in ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, generate_llms_txt, and pipeworx_feedback. There is also inconsistency in verb style — get_/search_/list_ coexist with bare verbs like remember, recall, forget, and subscribe. The legislation tools themselves follow a clean get_legislation* pattern, but the wider set does not.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a server named 'Legislation Uk' where only 4 tools actually relate to UK legislation. The remaining 31 tools appear to belong to a broader data/prediction-market platform, which suggests severe scope creep or a mislabeled assembly. This bloats the surface area and makes the server harder for an agent to navigate.

Completeness4/5

For the stated UK-legislation purpose, the core read-and-search workflow is covered: search_legislation, get_legislation, get_legislation_section, and get_legislation_text together support discovery, metadata, targeted section lookup, and full-text retrieval with version selection. Obvious gaps remain, such as full-text content search and amendment/change history, but agents can complete the primary task of finding and reading legislation. The unrelated tools neither help nor complete this domain.

Resources