Skip to main content
Glama

Nyc Parks

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, nondestructive. The description adds behavioral context: probes ai_visibility_check per entity, returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. No contradictions.

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 with main action, no filler. Every sentence adds unique information about purpose, method, 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?

Given complexity (4 params, no output schema), description covers what the tool returns (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Could mention pagination or limits, but sufficient.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value: first entity treated as 'subject' for narrative, models default to workers-ai, _apiKey only needed for anthropic. This enriches schema descriptions.

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, probes each with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized. It distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check (single entity) and aligns with the tool name.

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 concrete use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question. It implies when to use this vs single-entity probe, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like compare_entities.

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

All Nyc Parks 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
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded trio are functionally near-identical to an agent (the beta is explicitly described as currently identical to stable), and the five polymarket_* tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) have heavily overlapping concerns around finding and validating prediction-market edges. The descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries require careful reading to pick correctly.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use snake_case and mostly follow a verb-first or noun-phrase convention, with recognizable family prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) that aid navigation. Minor deviations exist — bare nouns like categories and events, and the inconsistent verb placement in bet_research vs. validate_claim — but the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is already heavy, but the fatal problem is that the server is named 'Nyc Parks' while ~31 of 33 tools are a generic Pipeworx data-retrieval/prediction-market toolkit. The count is egregiously mismatched to the stated purpose; only 2 tools relate to NYC Parks at all.

Completeness2/5

For the server's literal name, the surface is severely incomplete: categories and events exist, but there is no way to look up parks, facilities, permits, or event details, and no CRUD-lifecycle coverage. Viewed as a Pipeworx data toolkit the surface is quite thorough, but that is not what the server claims to be, so the stated NYC Parks domain is barely covered and creates dead ends.

Resources