Skip to main content
Glama

Linear

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive. The description adds that it calls ai_visibility_check per entity, ranks results, and returns score, confidence, signal density. No contradictions.

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 sentences: first defines the action, second adds context and output details. Front-loaded, 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 clearly describes the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity). It also notes the entity count limit (2-8). Sufficient for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the roles of the entities array (first as subject, rest as competitors) and that models default to 'workers-ai' if omitted.

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 compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, using an internal probe. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'ai_visibility_check' by being a multi-entity, ranking version.

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 clear use case (competitive AI-marketing audits) and an example question. It implicitly guides when to use this over single-entity checks, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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

All Linear 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially within their domains (e.g., Polymarket tools are well-separated). However, a few tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and suggest_questions could cause minor confusion, as they all deal with querying data.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tools from the same service use consistent prefixes (linear_, polymarket_, pipeworx_), but the overall naming style is mixed: some are verb_noun (linear_create_issue), some are noun_verb (bet_research), and some are single words (remember). This inconsistency reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, the server covers a broad range of functionality (data query, prediction markets, memory, etc.). While not excessive, the count is on the higher side, and the server name 'Linear' suggests a narrower focus, which may mislead expectations.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core data querying, research, entity profiles, prediction market analysis, and memory operations comprehensively. Minor gaps exist (e.g., limited Linear CRUD), but the overall surface feels complete for its intended use as a data assistant.

Resources