Skip to main content
Glama

Mlb Stats

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds: probes via 'ai_visibility_check', ranks by score, surfaces most/least recognized, and return includes score, confidence, signal density—adding 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded purpose, each sentence adds value. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return format (ranked list with fields). Parameters fully covered by schema and description. Context signals indicate high coverage. Complete for a comparison tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, but description adds key nuance: first entity treated as 'subject' for narrative, and implies default model. This clarifies parameter semantics beyond 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 it compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, distinguishes from sibling 'ai_visibility_check' by specifying multi-entity comparison and ranking.

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 a concrete use case (competitive AI-marketing audits) and implies when to use this vs 'ai_visibility_check' (single vs multi). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is sufficient.

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

All Mlb Stats 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Severe overlap between entry points: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and the prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) has fuzzy boundaries that would confuse an agent picking one. Entity lookups (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim) also overlap on company data. The stakes are raised by the server being named 'Mlb Stats' while most tools are unrelated general-data tools, compounding misselection risk.

Naming Consistency2/5

There is internal consistency within families — the 7 MLB tools share a clean get_ prefix, and the Poly tools share a polymarket_ prefix — but the overall set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), prefixed families (ask_pipeworx_*), and descriptive compounds (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt) with no unifying convention. The 'Mlb Stats' server name bears no relation to the dominant ask_pipeworx/deep_research naming, which further breaks pattern expectations.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is well past the heavy threshold, and more importantly the bulk of them (SEC filings, FRED economics, Polymarket arbitrage, npm scanning, AI visibility, subscriptions) have nothing to do with the server's stated MLB purpose. Only 7 of 38 tools are actually baseball-related, so the count is both too high for the labeled scope and misallocated.

Completeness3/5

The 7 MLB tools cover teams, rosters, schedule/scores, standings, player profiles, season stats, and batter-vs-pitcher history — a solid read-only core. However, obvious gaps remain: no per-game box scores, no league leaders, no team offensive/pitching stats, no live game detail beyond final scores. The Pipeworx catch-all router technically fills data gaps but leaves the MLB-specific surface incomplete.

Resources