Skip to main content
Glama

microlink

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds process details (probes each entity, ranks by score, returns ranked list with score/confidence/signal density), which goes beyond annotations and gives the agent a clear behavioral model.

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, front-loaded with purpose and mechanism. No redundant details; each sentence adds value (process, use case, return format).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, process, output format, and use case. It lacks explicit limitations or alternatives, but the schema and annotations fill remaining gaps (e.g., entity count, model options).

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 parameters have descriptions. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that 'entities' are brand/business/product names and that the first is the subject while others are competitors, reinforcing the narrative role.

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, with a specific process: probes each entity via ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, identifies most/least recognized. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool ai_visibility_check, which likely handles single-entity checks.

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?

Provides an explicit use case for competitive AI-marketing audits with an illustrative question ('does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?'). Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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

All microlink 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 with detailed usage guidance, but the several query entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) overlap conceptually and require careful reading to select correctly. Notably, ask_pipeworx_beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, which could cause confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix verb-first (remember, resolve_entity) and noun-first (entity_profile, deep_research) patterns, with some using prefixes like 'polymarket_' or 'ask_pipeworx'. While all are snake_case and readable, the lack of a single consistent convention makes the set feel less coherent than it could be.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high end for a single server, though the broad domain (data retrieval, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, web scraping) justifies much of the sprawl. Still, the count borders on heavy, and some tools could potentially be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx variants).

Completeness4/5

The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for its core data querying and analysis domain, with lifecycle coverage for memory and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist, such as no generic 'fetch page content' tool despite having get_metadata and take_screenshot, but these do not undermine the primary functionality.

Resources