Skip to main content
Glama

nouel

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond annotations by explaining the tool 'Probes each entity ... with ai_visibility_check' and returns 'a ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity'. This adds behavioral context not covered by the read-only, idempotent annotations. No contradiction found.

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 with no fluff. The opening line states the core purpose, followed by method and use case. Every sentence earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return format ('ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity') and gives a practical use case. Combined with schema covering inputs, it provides a complete picture for the agent.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds narrative about 'your brand + N competitors' and subject/competitor roles, but these are already in the schema, adding little extra meaning.

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?

Clearly states the specific verb 'Compare' and resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side'. It distinguishes from single-entity sibling ai_visibility_check by emphasizing side-by-side comparison and ranking, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clear use case: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' with a concrete example. It implies this is the multi-entity counterpart to ai_visibility_check, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All nouel 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool groups have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all query Pipeworx data; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker all analyze prediction markets). Descriptions help distinguish them, but the boundaries are not always clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly descriptive but mix conventions: some are verb_noun (list_subscriptions, get_prizes_by_year), others are noun_verb (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), and a few are single verbs (remember, recall). No strong pattern, but still readable.

Tool Count4/5

With 32 tools, the server covers a wide range of domains (data querying, prediction markets, company analysis, Nobel prizes, memory, subscriptions). The count is high but each tool serves a specific purpose, justifying the breadth.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for its stated domains: data retrieval, entity resolution, comparison, monitoring, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct bet placement on Polymarket), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources