Skip to main content
Glama

Producthunt

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
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the underlying process (probing with ai_visibility_check, ranking), output details (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density), and the role of the first entity as subject. 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?

The description is concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: action, process, use case, output. No unnecessary words.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description adequately describes the return format (ranked list with fields). It covers the essential behavior and use case. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or limits beyond schema, but schema covers entity count bound (2-8).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It does mention that the first entity is treated as subject, which adds marginal value, but overall parameter semantics are already well covered by schema.

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's purpose: comparing AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side. It specifies the verb 'Compare' and the resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic comparison) by focusing on AI presence 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 explicitly frames usage for competitive AI-marketing audits and provides an example question. It implies when to use (multi-entity comparison) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like ai_visibility_check for single entities. This is slightly lacking.

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

All Producthunt 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 are functionally near-identical: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly a duplicate of ask_pipeworx (descriptions say they 'currently match exactly'), and ask_pipeworx_grounded differs only in answer-extraction mode. The six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlap on edge-finding and fill-risk, and ai_visibility_check duplicates scan_competitor_ai_presence's per-entity probing. Agents will frequently misselect among these.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is consistently snake_case with a mostly verb_noun pattern (get_post, top_launches, subscribe, forget, validate_claim, resolve_entity). Minor deviations exist where nouns lead (entity_profile, recent_changes, recent_alerts, bet_research), and polymarket_* names use a domain-prefix style rather than pure verb_noun, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is at the heavy end, and the count is badly mismatched to the server's stated identity: it is named 'Producthunt' yet only 2 of 33 tools (get_post, top_launches) are Product Hunt related — the rest are Pipeworx data lookup, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools. The redundancy (duplicate ask_pipeworx_beta, overlapping polymarket tools) inflates the count without adding surface.

Completeness2/5

Judged against the Product Hunt domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: coverage is limited to list-top-launches and get-one-post, with no search, users, comments, votes, collections, or categories — and no way to act on Product Hunt data at all. As a general Pipeworx data platform the coverage is broader, but for the named purpose there are large gaps that will force agent failures.

Resources