Skip to main content
Glama

Nasa

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral details: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces most/least recognized, and returns score, confidence, signal density. This meaningfully extends beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences that front-load the core action and result. The example question adds flavor but is not essential. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficiently communicates purpose and output.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It covers purpose, input constraints (2-8 entities), and integration with ai_visibility_check. Some behavioral details like ordering or tie-breaking are missing, but sufficient for an aggregation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'first entry treated as subject for narrative'). It does not elaborate on 'models' or '_apiKey' beyond schema descriptions, so no significant added value.

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, and ranks them. It uses specific verbs ('Compare', 'Probes', 'ranks') and distinguishes from the sibling ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic comparison without AI focus).

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 gives a concrete use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question. It implicitly differentiates from single-entity probing but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. The sibling list includes ai_visibility_check and compare_entities, which are related but unaddressed.

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

All Nasa 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are three variants of the same router, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all target prediction-market opportunities. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent must read extensively to avoid selecting the wrong tool within each cluster.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of conventions: get_*/search_* for NASA tools, ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* family prefixes, plus one-off names like entity_profile, bet_research, deep_research, recent_changes, and scan_dependency. There is no consistent verb_noun or family-wide pattern, making tool selection unpredictable despite each individual name being readable.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is heavy for a server named Nasa, and only 5 of them are actually NASA-related; the rest form a sprawling general data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription toolkit. The count is borderline defensible for a broad data assistant, but it is clearly unjustified under the server's stated NASA identity.

Completeness3/5

As a general data-research assistant the surface is quite complete: discovery, routing, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, memory, subscriptions, and feedback are all covered. As a NASA server, however, there are notable gaps—no EONET events, Earth observation, exoplanet archive, or TLE/mission-specific data—and the large non-NASA tool surface does not fill those gaps.

Resources