Skip to main content
Glama

Mailchimp

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it internally calls ai_visibility_check and returns a ranked list, which is helpful but does not significantly extend beyond 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?

Three sentences, each with distinct value: purpose, usage example, output description. No fluff. Front-loaded with the core function.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the output (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density), covers all parameter nuances, and provides a usage example. Sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 descriptions. The description adds key context: entities first entry is the subject, rest are competitors; models default to workers-ai; context disambiguates. This enriches understanding beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, probes each with ai_visibility_check, and ranks them. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities.

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 targets competitive AI-marketing audits with an example question, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is for multi-entity comparison.

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

All Mailchimp 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

Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and discover_tools overlaps heavily with suggest_questions. The six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) have fuzzy boundaries that will mislead an agent choosing among them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case, but patterns vary: verb_noun (list_subscriptions, validate_claim), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and domain-prefixed tools (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*, mailchimp_*). No camelCase mixing, but the inconsistency across styles makes prediction of names harder.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named Mailchimp but only 5 of 36 tools are Mailchimp-related; the remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains (Pipeworx data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). This extreme mismatch means the count is wildly inappropriate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a Mailchimp server, the surface is severely incomplete: only read operations exist (list/get audiences, campaigns, members) with no create, update, delete, send, or automation tools. The Pipeworx tools are comparatively rich but their presence does not fix the fact that the Mailchimp domain itself is a dead end.

Resources