Skip to main content
Glama

Octopus Energy

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density—useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction present.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose, then explain the mechanism and use case. Every sentence adds distinct value 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?

The description explains the tool's process and output format adequately. It leverages annotations for safety and schema for parameter details. Could be improved by mentioning error or edge cases, but overall solid for a tool with no output schema.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the narrative role of the first entity and reinforcing the correlation between apiKey and the 'anthropic' model option, complementing the schema.

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 side-by-side, using ai_visibility_check and ranking results. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single probe) and compare_entities (generic comparison) by being specific to AI presence.

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 explicitly says it's useful for competitive AI-marketing audits and provides a concrete example question. It notes that the first entry is treated as the subject, guiding usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like ai_visibility_check.

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

All Octopus Energy 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes due to detailed descriptions and specific domains. However, there is potential for confusion between `ask_pipeworx` and `ask_pipeworx_grounded` (both route to data), and among the four polymarket tools, which could cause misselection if not read carefully.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: while all use snake_case, they mix verbs (`ask_`, `list_`, `bet_`, `scan_`), noun phrases (`entity_profile`, `product_details`, `recent_alerts`), and imperative verbs (`forget`, `remember`, `recall`). No single pattern is followed throughout, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count3/5

With 31 tools, the server covers multiple domains (energy, general data, betting, memory, subscriptions) which feels heavy for a single server named 'Octopus Energy'. While each tool has a role, the scope is overly broad, and many tools are tangential to energy, suggesting the number could be reduced or better scoped.

Completeness3/5

For the energy domain, tools are present but only cover listing products and tariffs, missing account management or switching. For the broader domains (data, prediction markets), coverage is decent but lacks some expected features like browsing all available data sources or user profile management. The set is not fully comprehensive for any single purpose.

Resources