Skip to main content
Glama

Macro Snapshot

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, returns a ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity, and treats the first entity as the subject for narrative. This adds value beyond 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Compare AI visibility...'). Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The description is efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's complexity (multi-entity comparison, aggregation from another tool), the description explains the process, the ranking, and the output fields (score, confidence, signal density). It also notes the narrative bias. No output schema exists, so the description adequately covers what the agent will receive.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning: 'entities' must be 2-8 with first as subject; 'models' defaults to workers-ai and requires _apiKey for anthropic; '_apiKey' passed to api.anthropic.com; 'context' disambiguates common names with example. This enriches the schema descriptions.

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 it compares AI visibility across multiple entities, ranking them by score. It uses specific verbs ('Compare', 'Probes', 'ranks', 'surfaces') and specifies the resource (AI visibility). It distinguishes itself from sibling ai_visibility_check (single probe) 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?

The description provides a use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and gives an example question. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives (e.g., ai_visibility_check for a single entity). The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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

All Macro Snapshot 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy heavily overlapping space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same router, with the beta version explicitly noted as currently identical to the stable one. The six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research and macro_snapshot/indicator further blur boundaries, so an agent could easily route a query to the wrong entry point despite the detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently snake_case and mostly follow a verb_first or domain_prefix pattern (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim, polymarket_edges). Minor deviations like entity_profile, indicator, macro_snapshot, and recent_alerts use noun phrases, but the style is still predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the surface is heavy and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the server covers many domains, several tools are near-duplicates or conveniences (ask_pipeworx_beta, scan_competitor_ai_presence, indicator) that could be consolidated.

Completeness5/5

For its apparent scope—structured data Q&A, grounded research, entity comparison, prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, and memory—the tool set covers the full lifecycle: query, ground, verify, research, compare, monitor, subscribe, alert, and manage state. There are no obvious dead ends; even supporting workflows like discover_tools and suggest_questions are provided.

Resources