Skip to main content
Glama

Paperswithcode

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?

Discloses that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. Annotations already provide safety hints, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No filler. 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?

Covers business context and output format (ranked list). With no output schema, description sufficiently describes return values. Could mention entity count range but schema already specifies 2-8.

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%, but the description adds value: 'First entry treated as the 'subject' for narrative' and clarifies model options ('workers-ai' default, 'anthropic' requires _apiKey).

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 a specific verb ('compare') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'ai_visibility_check' which is for single entity checks.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and gives an example question. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools beyond the implied contrast with 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 Paperswithcode 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 tools form overlapping families: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research cover much of the same router territory, and five Polymarket tools overlap heavily on edge/arbitrage analysis. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent would regularly need to compare multiple near-equivalent candidates before choosing one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case and readable, but the conventions vary widely: verb_noun (search_papers, resolve_entity), noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, recent_changes), bare verbs (remember, subscribe, forget), and suffixed variants (ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded). It is not chaotic, but there is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

Thirty-five tools is far too many for a server named Paperswithcode, especially since only four tools actually relate to papers while the rest cover data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm auditing, llms.txt generation, and AI visibility. The count feels bloated and the scope unfocused relative to the server's apparent identity.

Completeness3/5

The paper-discovery subdomain is reasonably covered with search, trending, detail, and implementation lookup, and the broader set includes discovery, memory, subscription lifecycle, and feedback tools. However, the overall surface is a patchwork of unrelated domains with no well-defined boundary, and paper datasets/models can only be counted rather than directly listed. Agents can work around most gaps, but the coverage is uneven.

Resources