Skip to main content
Glama

Qrcode

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it internally probes with ai_visibility_check and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. This provides useful behavior beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail rate limits or potential side effects.

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 and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second explains mechanics, third gives a use-case example. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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 the moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It also clarifies the entities parameter nuance (first entry as subject). Could mention entity limits explicitly, but those are in the schema.

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 coverage is 100% for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the entities semantics but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already provide.

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, probes each with ai_visibility_check, and ranks by score. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic comparison) by specifying the exact method and output.

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 provides a clear use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an illustrative example. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the context makes it obvious for multi-entity comparison tasks.

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

All Qrcode 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool families blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to the same underlying data sources for slightly different modes, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all orbit prediction-market opportunity-finding. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent would need to read deeply to reliably distinguish them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are all readable snake_case and some clusters are consistent (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), but the set mixes verb-first names like create_qr and validate_claim with noun-first names like entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_edges, and pipeworx_trending. There is no single predictable naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is above the 25+ threshold and reads as a full platform rather than a focused tool. For a server labeled Qrcode, only two tools are QR-related, so the count is severely inflated even if the data-research breadth is defensible.

Completeness2/5

The Pipeworx data-research surface is fairly complete: query, grounded verification, entity profiling, comparisons, recent changes, discovery, memory, and subscriptions are all represented. But the QR domain for the stated server purpose is only create/read with no batch, styling, or management, and the overall set has no coherent domain to be complete against.

Resources