Skip to main content
Glama

Opensky

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral details: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, treats first entity as subject, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, provides context, and gives an example. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters fully described in schema, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description explains purpose, how it works (probes with ai_visibility_check), return format, and usage scenario. It is complete for effective tool 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% so baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter meaning by noting that 'entities' first entry is treated as subject for narrative, and 'models' omission means just workers-ai. This adds value beyond 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 explicitly states it compares AI visibility across multiple entities, probes each with ai_visibility_check, ranks scores, and identifies most/least recognized. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic 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 clear context for use: competitive AI-marketing audits and the example question 'does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list includes ai_visibility_check for single-entity checks.

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

All Opensky 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all take natural-language factual questions, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. There is also overlap among get_states, get_aircraft, and airspace_activity, plus a large cluster of prediction-market tools with similar discovery purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is mostly snake_case and readable, with familiar patterns like get_*, list_*, resolve_*, and compare_*. It is not chaotic, but there are notable deviations: noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_changes, ai_visibility_check, and airspace_activity break the verb-first pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a single coherent server, especially because they comprise several independent families: aviation, data/research, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions. Each tool is individually justified, but the bundle should be split into smaller focused MCP servers.

Completeness3/5

The data-research side is fairly complete, with discover, routing, grounded verification, entity resolution, search-within, compare, and follow-up tools, and the subscription and memory lifecycles are covered. However, the OpenSky side is incomplete: get_flights explicitly cannot return its data, and referenced route/arrival/departure tools are missing from the set.

Resources