Skip to main content
Glama

Montreal Events

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 provide readOnly, idempotent, openWorld hints. Description adds that it internally calls ai_visibility_check per entity and requires an API key for Anthropic models, providing useful behavioral context 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 efficiently convey purpose, usage, and output structure. No redundancy, front-loaded with key action.

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?

Despite lacking output schema, description explicitly names return fields (score, confidence, signal density). Explains internal delegation to ai_visibility_check. Sufficient for agent to understand behavior and output.

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% but description adds key semantics: 'First entry treated as the subject for narrative; rest are competitors.' This goes beyond schema descriptions and clarifies how entities are interpreted.

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, probes each with ai_visibility_check, ranks results, and surfaces most/least recognized. It distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity).

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?

Explicitly says 'useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and gives an example question. Implicitly contrasts with ai_visibility_check for single entities, but no explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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

All Montreal Events 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

The set contains multiple near-duplicate meta-query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools) and five overlapping Polymarket analysis tools, creating genuine selection ambiguity despite detailed descriptions. The single events tool is distinct, but it is drowned out by a crowd of similar data-research utilities.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim, remember, forget). Only 'events' deviates by being a bare noun, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.

Tool Count1/5

32 tools is extreme for a server named 'Montreal Events', and only one tool actually relates to that domain. The remaining 31 form a sprawling, unrelated data-research, prediction-market, and memory toolkit that would overwhelm any agent trying to work with Montréal event data.

Completeness1/5

For the server's stated purpose, the surface is severely incomplete: a single read-only event search with no event details, venue info, categories, or management operations. The Pipeworx tools may cover their own domain thoroughly, but they contribute nothing to the Montreal Events scope.

Resources