Skip to main content
Glama

Realestateapi

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral details: it probes each entity with 'ai_visibility_check', ranks results, and treats the first entry as the subject. No contradiction 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 two sentences with a third example sentence, all front-loaded with purpose and key details. No wasted words; every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameters, output format (score, confidence, signal density), and use case. It lacks mention of error handling or edge cases, but with strong annotations, it is mostly complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the 'entities' parameter's first-entry treatment, the 'context' parameter's disambiguation role, and the 'models' parameter's supported options and default, enriching the schema meaning.

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, uses 'ai_visibility_check', ranks by score, and returns a ranked list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ai_visibility_check' (single entity) and 'compare_entities' (generic comparison).

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?

Explicitly mentions 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and gives an example question, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention specific alternative tools.

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

All Realestateapi 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping research/lookup purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and validate_claim both verify claims against sources, and six polymarket_* tools overlap on edge/arbitrage detection. The three realestateapi_* tools are distinct but sit awkwardly beside 31 unrelated tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: snake_case prefixed tools (realestateapi_property_search), domain-prefixed tools (polymarket_edges), verb-noun tools (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and bare verbs (remember, forget, recall). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy, and the vast majority belong to the Pipeworx platform rather than the Realestateapi identity — only 3 of 34 tools are real-estate specific. The count is not well-scoped for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a real estate API the surface is severely thin: search, detail, and skip-trace only, with no market trends, tax history, rental estimates, or comparable-sales data. For the Pipeworx meta-domain the coverage is broader, but the server presents as Realestateapi, making the domain coverage a mismatch.

Resources