Skip to main content
Glama

Materials

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. First observed

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 as false, covering core safety. The description adds behavioral details beyond these: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density, and treats the first entity as the subject. This enriches understanding without contradicting 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 two concise sentences plus a parenthetical example, front-loading the core action and then providing context. Every sentence adds value with no fluff, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value: a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. Combined with annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description covers usage, parameters, and behavior, making the tool fully understandable for an AI agent.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaningful value by explaining that 'entities' should have the first entry as the subject and provides examples for 'context'. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, which are already clear.

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 purpose: compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side using ai_visibility_check, rank by score, and identify most/least recognized. It provides a specific use case example and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check.

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 explains when to use this tool ('useful for competitive AI-marketing audits') and implies not to use it for single-entity checks by referencing ai_visibility_check. It does not explicitly list when not to use or direct to alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

All Materials 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
Disambiguation3/5

While many tools have detailed descriptions that help differentiate them, there is significant overlap among query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research. The prediction market tools also cluster together, making it challenging for an agent to quickly pick the right one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a descriptive snake_case convention (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities). Minor deviations exist, such as 'ai_visibility_check' and 'deep_research', but overall the naming pattern is predictable and clear.

Tool Count3/5

With 33 tools, the server is larger than typical single-domain servers. While it supports a broad data platform, this count feels somewhat bloated and could benefit from consolidation, especially among overlapping query tools.

Completeness1/5

The server is named 'Materials' but contains only two materials-specific tools (materials_search, materials_stability). The remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains (finance, economics, prediction markets, etc.), leaving the stated domain severely incomplete.

Resources