Skip to main content
Glama

Sec Form D

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), description explains internal behavior: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, returns 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?

Three sentences, each essential. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by behavioral detail and usage example. No wasted words.

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 lack of output schema, description sufficiently describes return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Parameter constraints (2-8 entities) are in schema. Covers what and why.

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?

Adds value beyond schema by explaining first entity treated as subject, models supported (name-dropping Anthropic API key requirement), and context disambiguation. Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3, but description provides extra context.

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?

Clear specification of comparing AI visibility across multiple entities, with explicit mention of ranking and scoring. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check by focusing on side-by-side 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?

Provides clear usage scenario ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and example. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to sibling tool compare_entities, but context is sufficient.

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

All Sec Form D 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded all route questions to data sources with minor differences. Form D tools and meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) further blur boundaries, making it hard for an agent to select the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, validate_claim, subscribe). However, there are minor deviations like bet_research and deep_research without clear verbs, and the ask_pipeworx variants use irregular suffixes.

Tool Count2/5

With 39 tools, the server is over-scoped, including many utility and meta-tools (remember, recall, forget, list_subscriptions) that inflate the count beyond the core domain (SEC Form D and data lookups). A more focused set of 10-15 tools would be more coherent.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a very broad range of data sources and actions, including SEC filings, prediction markets, entity profiling, and AI visibility. However, the completeness is uneven; for example, there are many Form D tools but few for other SEC forms, and some areas like weather or clinical trials are only accessible via ask_pipeworx.

Resources