Skip to main content
Glama

Quotes

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds that it probes each entity via ai_visibility_check, returns ranked list with score/confidence/signal density, and mentions optional API key. No contradictions, and adds useful context beyond 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?

Four sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second explains internals, third gives example usage, fourth describes output. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Description explains output format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) which compensates for missing output schema. Covers key usage context but doesn't detail error handling or model validation scenarios. Adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minor nuance (first entity treated as subject for narrative) but mostly repeats what the schema already provides. Does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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, performs internal probing, ranks results, and identifies most/least recognized. It is well-differentiated from sibling tool 'ai_visibility_check' which operates on a single entity.

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 gives a concrete use case (competitive AI-marketing audits) and implicitly distinguishes from the single-entity sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to alternatives.

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

All Quotes 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
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set includes multiple similar tools (e.g., three ask_pipeworx variants, several Polymarket tools) that could cause agent confusion. While each has a distinct purpose, the boundaries are subtle and descriptions lean heavily on jargon, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently. Most follow a noun_verb or verb_noun pattern, but some (e.g., ai_visibility_check, bet_research) start with a subject rather than an action, breaking a strict verb-first convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 40 tools, the server feels overloaded. The name 'Quotes' suggests a narrow focus, yet the tool set spans fact-checking, company research, prediction markets, and more. Many tools are highly specialized or meta-tools, inflating the count without clear necessity.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of use cases, from quotes and literature to financial data and prediction markets. However, there are noticeable gaps in core areas (e.g., basic CRUD for quotes beyond search and random), and the sheer breadth creates dead ends for deep workflows.

Resources