Skip to main content
Glama

Seo Competitors

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description discloses operational behavior beyond annotations: rate limit of 5 per identifier per day, free usage, claim_token flow for checking status, team digest cadence, and roadmap impact. Annotations only give binary hints, so this context is genuinely additive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then flows into exclusions, operational details, and limitations. It is long but every sentence carries distinct information; a minor deduction for density, but structure is logical and appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's multi-faceted nature (feedback types, claim tokens, rate limits, external scope exclusions) and lack of output schema, the description fully covers invocation patterns, expected behavior, and edge cases. No gaps remain in understanding how or when to use the tool.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches parameter understanding: explains claim_token's role in retrieving previous feedback, that passing it alone yields a status update, and clarifies the context object's usage. It also adds constraints on message content beyond the schema's character limit.

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 action ('Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist') and the resource (Pipeworx team/connection). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly limiting scope to this Pipeworx connection, preventing confusion with other MCP servers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and also exclusions ('ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... file it with that server instead'). It further clarifies what to include in the message and how to check feedback status via claim_token, giving complete alternative paths.

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

All Seo Competitors 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

Several tools are near-duplicates or easily confused: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, ai_visibility_check overlaps with scan_competitor_ai_presence, and polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research all target opportunity discovery. While many tools are distinct, the boundaries between these clusters are unclear enough to cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools use a consistent lowercase snake_case convention with descriptive noun/verb patterns (e.g., polymarket_edges, entity_profile, validate_claim, resolve_entity). Minor deviations like seo_domain_ranked_keywords and ask_pipeworx_beta are slightly off-pattern, but the overall style is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is above the threshold where a set starts to feel bloated, especially for a server named "Seo Competitors". The count includes many unrelated subsystems—Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions, and generic data routing—making it feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused SEO competitor toolkit.

Completeness2/5

For a server claiming to support SEO competitor analysis, the surface is incomplete: it offers a keyword-ranking tool and AI visibility checks, but lacks standard competitor SEO capabilities like backlink analysis, rank tracking over time, content-gap analysis, or site audits. The broader data/query tooling is extensive, but it doesn't fill the gaps in the advertised domain.

Resources