Skip to main content
Glama

Met No

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 that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a specific structure (score, confidence, signal density), giving behavioral insight beyond annotations without contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a practical example in a natural way. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and key input semantics (entities 2-8, first is subject). Combined with strong annotations for safety and read-only behavior, the tool is completely described for an agent to use 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%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' and the rest are competitors, and clarifies the context parameter is shared across probes, going beyond 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 the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, mentioning the underlying ai_visibility_check probe and ranking by score. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single probe) and compare_entities, making its 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 clear context for when to use this tool: for competitive AI-marketing audits, with a concrete example. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context and reference to ai_visibility_check imply the appropriate scenario versus single-entity checks.

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

All Met No 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among closely related ones (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research; multiple Polymarket tools). Descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate, but an agent might still misselect on subtle differences.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names consistently use lowercase with underscores, but no strong verb_noun pattern. Some are noun-based (airquality, nowcast), others verb-based (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities). This is readable but not perfectly predictable.

Tool Count4/5

35 tools is high but justified by the server's broad scope (data queries, betting analysis, weather, memory, subscriptions). The number feels appropriate given the comprehensive functionality described.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers an impressively wide range of capabilities: data querying with multiple modes, entity profiling, comparisons, search, betting analysis, weather, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. Missing features (e.g., updating memories) are minor; the surface is remarkably complete.

Resources