Skip to main content
Glama

Quotable

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it internally calls ai_visibility_check, requires an _apiKey for certain models, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. No contradictions.

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, front-loads the purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity of comparing multiple entities and calling another tool, the description covers purpose, input behavior, and output structure. No output schema exists, but the description adequately specifies return fields. The entity limit (2-8) is in the schema.

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% with descriptions. The description adds extra meaning: the first entity is treated as 'subject' for narrative, which is not in the schema. This provides valuable guidance for usage.

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 it compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, probing each with ai_visibility_check and ranking results. It differentiates from the sibling ai_visibility_check (single entity) and describes output, making purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and example question. However, it does not explicitly tell when not to use the tool or mention alternatives like ai_visibility_check for single entities, though this is implied through context.

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

All Quotable 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

The ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) is highly overlapping—two of them are explicitly identical right now—and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research create unclear boundaries between prediction-market analysis tools. Company-focused tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, resolve_entity) also partially overlap in what they fetch, making tool selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a clear snake_case pattern with descriptive verbs (search_quotes, resolve_entity, validate_claim, subscribe, unsubscribe). There is good use of family prefixes like polymarket_* and pipeworx_*, though the Pipeworx family mixes prefix and suffix placement (ask_pipeworx vs. pipeworx_feedback), which is a minor inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is far too many for a server named 'Quotable', especially since only 4 tools (get_authors, list_tags, random_quote, search_quotes) relate to quotes. The rest span data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, and dependency scanning—an extremely broad, unfocused scope that overwhelms the apparent purpose.

Completeness3/5

The quote-related surface is minimal but functional (random, search, authors, tags), though missing obvious operations like get_quote_by_id. The data-lookup and prediction-market domains are thoroughly covered with grounding, research, arbitrage, and fill-risk tools, so the broader set is complete—but it does not serve the server's stated identity as a quotes provider.

Resources