Skip to main content
Glama

Omdb

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. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) indicate safe, non-destructive, read-only behavior. The description adds specifics: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks results, and returns 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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and provide useful details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return format (ranked list with score/confidence/signal density) and entity limit (2-8 from schema). Minor missing details like result limits are acceptable for a scanning tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds semantic value by noting the first entity is treated as the 'subject' for narrative and rest as competitors. It also clarifies default model behavior (workers-ai).

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 probes and ranking by score. It distinguishes itself from the sibling ai_visibility_check (which likely handles a single entity) by focusing on multi-entity comparison.

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, giving clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like compare_entities or 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 Omdb 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answering questions, and bet_research overlapping with polymarket_edges/arbitrage. The diverse tool set lacks clear boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but verb patterns are inconsistent: some start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, remember) while others start with nouns (polymarket_arbitrage, entity_profile). Names vary widely in length and descriptiveness.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Omdb', which implies a movie database. Most tools are unrelated to movies, indicating poor scoping for the server's purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the OMDb domain, only search and retrieval tools exist, with no create/update/delete operations. Overall, the tool set feels like a random collection with significant gaps relative to any coherent domain.

Resources