Skip to main content
Glama

Scream Void

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds process details (probing with ai_visibility_check) and output structure (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density), which are transparent about expected behavior 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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by mechanism and example usage. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description explains all necessary aspects: what it does, how it works (probes each entity), what it returns (ranked list with metrics), and example use case. No output schema exists, but the description covers return values adequately.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial context: first entity is the 'subject' for narrative, rest are competitors. It also clarifies default model and apiKey usage. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema.

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, using ai_visibility_check, and ranks by score. It distinguishes 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?

The description explicitly targets competitive AI-marketing audits and implies when to use it. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or exclude alternatives, but the context from sibling tools and the description's mention of 'probes each entity with ai_visibility_check' provides sufficient guidance.

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

All Scream Void 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
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap significantly in purpose, especially the ask_pipeworx variants (standard, beta, grounded) and deep_research, as well as the polymarket arbitrage/edges/fill_risk/kalshi_spread suite. It would be hard for an agent to reliably choose the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle distinctions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mostly use snake_case, but there is no consistent prefix or verb pattern. Some names are descriptive phrases (e.g., scream_void_scream, compare_entities) while others are vague (e.g., forget, recall). The mix of 'pipeworx_' prefix on some tools and lack of it on others adds inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is on the high side for a data research server, given the overlapping functionality. Some tools could be merged (e.g., the ask_pipeworx variants, polymarket tools). However, the count is not excessive enough to be unmanageable, and each tool serves a specific niche.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a broad range of data sources and prediction market analysis, with tools for research, comparison, monitoring, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update stored memories or manage subscriptions beyond CRUD), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources