Skip to main content
Glama

Steam

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful orchestration context: it calls ai_visibility_check per entity and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density, which goes beyond the 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, includes a concrete example, and contains no redundant or tangential information.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description must specify the return shape, which it does (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Input details like model selection and API key are fully documented in the schema, and the overall workflow is clear enough for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description reinforces that the first entity is the 'subject' and context is shared across probes, but adds little new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Compare' and resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side', clearly distinguishing from single-entity ai_visibility_check and generic compare_entities. It also states the tool probes each entity with ai_visibility_check and ranks results, making its function unambiguous.

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 frames usage as 'competitive AI-marketing audits' with an example question, and implies it's the multi-entity counterpart to ai_visibility_check. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for single-entity checks), so a clear exclusion is missing.

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

All Steam 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

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants, while deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve meta/onboarding purposes. The Steam-specific tools are distinct, but they are drowned out by a large unrelated set (Polymarket, Pipeworx, npm scanning) that makes selection confusing.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no single convention: some are verb_noun (resolve_vanity_url, generate_llms_txt), some are noun-only (app_details, player_stats), and others use domain prefixes inconsistently (polymarket_arbitrage, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research). The mix of descriptive and vague names (process, run, execute) adds to the inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

At 45 tools, the server is heavily overloaded, especially for a server named 'Steam' where only about a third of the tools actually relate to Steam. The rest belong to Pipeworx, Polymarket, and other unrelated domains, making the scope unclear and the tool count far too large for a focused purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the Steam domain, the server covers a reasonable range: app details/news, player counts, friends, owned games, achievements, stats, bans, levels, and summaries. However, notable gaps exist such as store search, reviews, wishlist, or any user inventory/trading features. The non-Steam tools add breadth but do not address these missing Steam operations.

Resources