Skip to main content
Glama

Remoteok

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the process (probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks results) and output format, without contradicting 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?

Three sentences front-loaded with purpose, followed by method and example. No filler or redundancy; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers core functionality, use case, and output format. Lacks mention of array size limits (though schema states 2-8) and error scenarios, but sufficient for typical usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful context: treats first entity as 'subject', explains when _apiKey is needed, and clarifies 'context' parameter usage. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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, with a specific verb 'compare' and resource 'AI visibility'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'ai_visibility_check' by noting it probes each entity and returns a ranked list, making its comparative purpose evident.

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 provides a use case 'competitive AI-marketing audits' and an example question. It implies when to use (side-by-side comparison) but does not explicitly state when not to use or directly differentiate from sibling 'compare_entities', though the context is clear.

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

All Remoteok 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

Several tool clusters have fuzzy boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions through the same routing layer, while polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and bet_research all address prediction-market edges. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent can easily select the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern (list_jobs, search_jobs, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but there are numerous noun-first and adjective-first exceptions (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage) plus bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe). The pattern is readable but not consistently applied.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the well-scoped range, and the vast majority are not about the server's RemoteOK namesake. The set appears to merge several distinct domains (Pipeworx data research, Polymarket betting, RemoteOK jobs, memory utilities) into one oversized surface, making it feel more like a bundled platform than a focused server.

Completeness4/5

For the dominant Pipeworx/data-research theme, coverage is strong: question answering, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, discovery, memory, subscriptions, and citation-based research are all present. The RemoteOK job subset covers list/search/get without obvious dead ends. Minor gaps exist (no direct citation-URI fetcher, no job alert subscriptions), but agents can work around them.

Resources