Skip to main content
Glama

Movies

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent; the description adds behavioral context by explaining the probe mechanism, ranking logic, and return fields (score, confidence, signal density). It also discloses that the first entity is treated as the subject. No contradiction with 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 concise and well-structured: four sentences, action-first, with a useful example and return-value preview. Every sentence contributes needed context with no redundancy.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description effectively pre-announces the ranked result shape and the core use case. It is complete given the rich annotations and schema, though it could slightly improve by explicitly stating when to prefer this over ai_visibility_check.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema, mostly framing entities as brand vs competitors. It does not clarify parameter formats or edge cases beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by mentioning the internal call to ai_visibility_check, ranking by score, and surfacing most/least recognized entities.

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 a clear use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') with a concrete example question. It implies contrast with the single-entity ai_visibility_check tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives beyond the implied sibling.

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

All Movies 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have heavily overlapping purposes—ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, while entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all pull overlapping company data. The server is named 'Movies' but only 4 of 35 tools relate to movies, making it impossible to infer what the tool set is actually for.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (search_movies, get_tv_schedule), bare nouns (remember, recall), brand prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and ad-hoc verbs (ask_pipeworx vs validate_claim). There is no consistent convention; even the pipeworx family uses ask_ vs grounded vs beta suffixes that don't follow a predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy for a single server, and for a 'Movies' server it is extreme overkill since the vast majority have nothing to do with movies. Even if the intent was a general data/betting server, 35 tools exceed the upper bound of the well-scoped range and would be better split into focused servers.

Completeness2/5

As a movies/TV server it is severely incomplete: there is no get_movie, no reviews, no watchlist, no person/actor search—only search_movies, search_tv_shows, get_tv_show, and get_tv_schedule. If instead the domain is Pipeworx data, coverage is better but still lacks mutation tools (e.g., no create/update for subscriptions beyond subscribe/unsubscribe) and the movie tools become dead weight.

Resources