Skip to main content
Glama

Outlook Contacts

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds details about the internal process (calls ai_visibility_check for each entity), ranking, and output structure (score, confidence, signal density). No contradiction.

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 concise sentences: purpose, process, and use case/output. Front-loaded with the primary action, no filler.

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 adequately explains return format (ranked list with scores). It also addresses the special handling of the first entity. Slightly more detail on output structure would improve completeness, but it is sufficient for effective use.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds beyond it: explains that the first entity is treated as the subject for narrative, clarifies that models defaults to workers-ai, and provides concrete examples for the context parameter. This adds significant semantic value.

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, uses ai_visibility_check internally, and returns a ranked list. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'ai_visibility_check' and 'compare_entities' by specifying side-by-side 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 explicitly mentions the tool is useful for competitive AI-marketing audits with an illustrative example. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like ai_visibility_check for single entities, though this can be inferred from the mention of probing each entity with that tool.

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

All Outlook Contacts 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-duplicates by name and function, notably ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta, and the dense Polymarket family (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread). Long descriptions help, but an agent cannot reliably pick between these without reading closely.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all names are lowercase_snake_case and mostly verb-leading (discover_tools, resolve_entity, unsubscribe), but there are noun-first exceptions (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipework_trending) and several phrasal or compound forms. This is a minor deviation from a clean verb_noun pattern rather than a chaotic mix.

Tool Count2/5

31 tools is over the heavy threshold, and the set feels bloated: multiple query routers, a half-dozen overlapping Polymarket tools, and two AI-visibility probes that could be merged. The count is especially hard to justify for a server named Tools 'OutLook Contacts', since none are contact management.

Completeness1/5

For the server's stated domain, Outlook Contacts, there are zero tools in that domain — no create contact, no list contacts, no update, no delete, no folders or mailboxes. Even though the actual Pipework toolkit is broad for its own domain, this set fails its declared intend domain entirely.

Resources