Skip to main content
Glama

Pypi Stats

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) already indicate safety. The description adds that the tool probes entities via 'ai_visibility_check', ranks by score, and returns score, confidence, and signal density. No contradiction with annotations. This goes beyond the structured data.

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 sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' Every sentence adds distinct value (what it does, how it works, use case, output).

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 rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains the internal probe mechanism, the output structure, and provides a practical example. No output schema, but the description lists returned fields (score, confidence, signal density).

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the first entity in 'entities' is treated as the subject and that the array should contain brands/businesses. This contextualizes the parameters 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' and the resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities'. It specifies the outcome: ranked list with scores. It distinguishes from sibling 'ai_visibility_check' by aggregating comparisons and from 'compare_entities' by its focus on AI visibility. The concrete use case about Claude recognition solidifies purpose.

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 advises using this tool for competitive AI-marketing audits, comparing multiple entities. It implies that for single-entity checks, one should use 'ai_visibility_check' instead. However, it does not directly exclude alternatives or differentiate from sibling 'compare_entities', which could cause ambiguity.

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

All Pypi Stats 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap between tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all performing similar data lookup functions. Additionally, multiple prediction market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) have overlapping purposes. An agent would struggle to choose the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern and use clear domain prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, python_) and verb_noun structure (e.g., validate_claim, compare_entities). Minor inconsistency exists with tools like 'overall' not following verb_noun, but overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 36 tools, the count is high but justifiable given the broad array of capabilities (data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). However, the server name 'Pypi Stats' suggests a narrow focus, making the count feel excessive for that purpose. The actual scope is wide, so the count is borderline appropriate.

Completeness4/5

For its actual scope as a data query and analysis platform, the tool set is quite complete: it covers company profiles, comparisons, claim verification, trend analysis, and prediction market insights. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for most data types), but core query and lookup operations are well covered.

Resources