Skip to main content
Glama

Photon

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 indicate readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, etc. The description adds that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns ranked list with score/confidence/signal density per entity. No contradictions with annotations.

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 action, second explains process, third adds use case. Front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words. Earns a perfect score.

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?

Despite 4 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does (compares visibility), how it works (probes via ai_visibility_check), and what it returns (ranked list with metrics). Complete for its complexity level.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds context: first entity treated as 'subject' for narrative, and explains the purpose of models, _apiKey, context beyond their schema descriptions. Adds moderate 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 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It specifies the action (compare), resource (AI visibility across entities), and distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single probe) 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?

It explicitly states 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' with an example question, suggesting when to use. It implies alternatives (ai_visibility_check for single entity) but could be more explicit about when not to use. Still clear and valuable.

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

All Photon 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, even within clusters like Pipeworx queries (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs deep_research) and Polymarket tools (bet_research, arbitrage, edges, etc.). Overlap is minimal and explicitly addressed in descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use snake_case, and most follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity). Exceptions like remember, reverse are still single words in the same style.

Tool Count4/5

32 tools is on the high side but justified by the wide scope: data querying, betting, memory, subscriptions, and utilities. Each tool earns its place, and the count is not excessive given the breadth.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core workflows of querying structured data, comparing entities, validating claims, scanning dependencies, and monitoring, with few gaps (e.g., no direct data visualization). Minor gaps exist but are manageable.

Resources