Skip to main content
Glama

Lemmy

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. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe read operation (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it reveals the tool 'probes each entity with ai_visibility_check', explicitly names a sibling tool as an internal dependency, and describes the ranking/return behavior. This transparency about the underlying mechanism is valuable and does not contradict the 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 three sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core purpose (compare side-by-side), then explains the method (probes with ai_visibility_check), then gives a use case and output summary. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a composite tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the relationship to a sibling tool, what the output looks like (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density), and when it's useful. It doesn't discuss error handling or rate limits, but given the strong annotation coverage and simplicity, this is adequate.

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 all parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it frames entities as 'your brand + N competitors' and mentions 'context applied to every probe' (which is also in the schema). This meets the baseline but does not go beyond what the schema already provides.

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: comparing AI visibility across multiple entities. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the single-entity sibling ai_visibility_check by describing a side-by-side batch comparison with ranking. The verb 'scan' plus specific resource 'competitor AI presence' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 a concrete use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and a real-world question ('does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?'). It implies the tool is for comparing multiple entities rather than a single one, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context without formal when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Lemmy 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual questions, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_fill_risk all analyze prediction markets. The Lemmy tools are distinct from the Pipeworx tools, but within each cluster an agent could easily select the wrong tool despite lengthy descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: single nouns (post, community, site), verb_noun patterns (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt), and ad-hoc names (ask_pipeworx, forget, recall). There is no consistent verb_noun or noun-only pattern across the set, making it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for a server named 'Lemmy' where only 7 tools (comments, communities, community, post, posts, search, site) actually relate to Lemmy. The vast majority of tools belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data platform, creating a severe scope mismatch and making the server feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the Lemmy domain, the tools cover read-only browsing (list posts, view post, list communities, fetch community, comments, search, site metadata) but completely lack write operations like posting, commenting, voting, or moderation. The Pipeworx tools are extensive but do not compensate for the primary domain's gaps since the server is ostensibly about Lemmy.

Resources