Skip to main content
Glama

Odds Api

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?

Description explains it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check and returns ranked list with metrics. Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive; description adds internal mechanism and output structure without contradicting 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?

Three sentences: first defines core action, second explains mechanism, third provides use case and output summary. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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 no output schema, description adequately outlines output elements (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Could mention pagination or limits but sufficient for selection.

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%, but description adds key context: first entity treated as subject, default model is workers-ai, and context parameter for disambiguation.

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 it compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side. Verb and resource specific, distinguishes from sibling 'ai_visibility_check' which likely handles single 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?

Explicitly provides use case for competitive AI-marketing audits with example. Context of comparing multiple entities is clear, though no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Odds Api 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

Most tools have distinct scopes, and the long cross-referencing descriptions help a lot. However, ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact duplicate of ask_pipeworx by the server's own description, and the polymarket_* family plus ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research have overlapping boundaries that could mislead an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern like get_odds, list_sports, resolve_entity, and subscribe. A few exceptions such as odds_api_quota, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage, and recall break the pattern slightly, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well past the 25+ threshold and feels bloated for a server named 'Odds Api'. Many tools are meta-platform utilities — memory, feedback, trending, dependency scanning, llms.txt generation — that have no obvious connection to an odds API and make the surface hard to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The odds domain is well covered: list_sports, get_events, get_odds, get_event_odds, get_scores, quota tracking, and subscriptions form a coherent read/monitor workflow. Minor gaps exist — no historical odds or a single-event detail endpoint — but agents can complete core odds research and monitoring tasks without dead ends.

Resources