Skip to main content
Glama

Opencellid

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, idempotentHint, etc.) already convey safety. The description adds behavioral context: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns score, confidence, signal density per entity. This supplements the annotations well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then detail functionality and use case. It is fairly concise, though the second sentence is a bit long. No filler or repetition.

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, the description covers return values (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It also describes internal behavior (calling ai_visibility_check). It lacks details on error handling or limits, but the annotations cover safety. Overall complete for a benchmarking tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains the entities array's semantics (first is subject), that models default to workers-ai, that _apiKey is only needed for anthropic, and that context disambiguates common names. This goes well beyond the schema's basic 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 the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, using ai_visibility_check and ranking results. It distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic comparison) by specifying its competitive audit use case.

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 recommends use for competitive AI-marketing audits and notes that the first entity is treated as the subject. While it does not directly advise against using alternative tools, the sibling list includes ai_visibility_check for single entities, and the context implies this is for multi-entity comparisons.

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

All Opencellid 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

Several tools are near-indistinguishable by role: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are documented as currently identical, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research overlap as lookup/research entry points. The six-tool Polymarket cluster and the suggest_questions/discover_tools pair add further boundary confusion despite very long descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used consistently, and clusters like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* have internal consistency. However, the global convention is mixed: verb_object names (get_cell, resolve_entity, unsubscribe) sit beside noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, cells_in_area) and product-prefixed nouns (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), so tool names are not predictable from function.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is too many for a server named Opencellid, especially since only get_cell and cells_in_area actually belong to the cell-tower domain. Even as a broader Pipeworx/data bundle, the set is heavy and includes unrelated one-offs like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency.

Completeness2/5

For an OpenCellID server, the surface is just two lookups, missing coverage stats, operator-based search, and other natural cell-tower operations. If judged instead as a Pipeworx data-research suite, coverage is broad, but the lack of a coherent stated domain makes obvious gaps and dead ends harder to identify.

Resources