Skip to main content
Glama

Packagephobia

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 declare safe read-only, open-world, idempotent hints. The description adds behavioral details: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks results, and returns score, confidence, and signal density per entity. 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 sentences: first states purpose, second explains mechanism, third provides use case and output summary. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 covers output structure. It lacks mention of error handling or constraints (e.g., entity count limit of 2-8), but overall is sufficient for a tool with rich annotations.

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 meaning by specifying that the first entity in 'entities' is treated as the 'subject' for narrative and that 'context' disambiguates names. This goes beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side,' specifying the resource (entities) and action (compare). It distinguishes from sibling tool ai_visibility_check by emphasizing multiple entities and ranking.

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 context for use ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and gives an example question. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 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 Packagephobia 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several near-overlapping query tools exist: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently described as identical to ask_pipeworx. The Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker) also heavily overlap and rely on lengthy descriptions to keep them apart.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is uniformly snake_case and generally readable, but conventions are mixed: verb_noun (resolve_entity, suggest_questions), noun_verb (bet_research, ai_visibility_check), noun_adj (pipeworx_trending, recent_changes), and bare verbs (size, forget, recall) all appear. Variant suffixes like ask_pipeworx_beta and ask_pipeworx_grounded add further unpredictability.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools exceeds the 'too many' threshold and spans unrelated domains: package size, general data research, prediction markets, memory, and subscription management. The set would feel more coherent at roughly half the count, with several query and Polymarket tools consolidated.

Completeness3/5

For the dominant data-research purpose, the surface is reasonably complete: querying, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, and discovery are all covered. However, the server's stated identity ('Packagephobia') is nearly absent—only `size` and `scan_dependency` address package sizing—so the namesake domain is thin while unrelated domains are overbuilt.

Resources