Skip to main content
Glama

Slack_connect

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds valuable behavioral context: it details the probing process (invoking ai_visibility_check per entity), output structure (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density), and requirement for Anthropic API key when using that model.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key behavioral details. Every sentence is informative and concise, with a concrete use case example.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input, process, and output well. It explains the return format (ranked list with metrics). Lacks edge cases (e.g., entity not found), but overall sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the first entity in 'entities' is treated as the subject for narrative, and clarifies that 'models' defaults to workers-ai and that '_apiKey' is only needed for 'anthropic'. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 side-by-side, specifying it probes each entity, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized. It distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (more general).

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 says 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and gives a concrete question example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for single entity checks, use ai_visibility_check instead), but the context makes it clear.

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

All Slack_connect 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the multiple 'ask_pipeworx' variants and various Polymarket tools that serve similar functions. The lack of clear boundaries between data retrieval tools makes it difficult for an agent to choose the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns are inconsistent: Slack tools use a 'slack_' prefix, while Pipeworx tools use a mix of verbs (ask_, validate_, resolve_) and nouns (entity_profile, bet_research). No uniform convention is applied across the set.

Tool Count3/5

With 36 tools, the count is high but not unreasonable for a comprehensive data platform. However, the inclusion of only 5 Slack tools in a server named 'Slack_connect' indicates a mismatch between tool count and intended purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a Slack integration, the tool surface is severely incomplete—missing core operations like creating channels, archiving, reactions, or message threading. The Pipeworx tools are extensive but unrelated to the server's stated purpose.

Resources