Skip to main content
Glama

Stratz

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by explaining it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check and returns a ranked list with scores, confidence, and 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 covering action, method, output, and use case. Front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes return fields (score, confidence, signal density per entity). It covers all parameters. Missing details like error handling or model-specific behavior, but sufficient for an agent.

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%. The description adds context: first entity is the 'subject' for narrative, and models parameter includes default 'workers-ai' with note about apiKey. This enhances understanding 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 explicitly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities, uses ai_visibility_check, and ranks results. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (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?

The description provides a concrete use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question. It implies the tool is for multi-entity comparison, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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

All Stratz 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping or intentionally duplicated purposes: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta currently behave identically, and the Polymarket cluster (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) presents multiple scanners with fuzzy boundaries. The long descriptions help, but the set as a whole is hard to navigate without close reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of bare single nouns (hero, match, meta, remember, forget), snake_case verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt), and noun-first compounds (pipeworx_feedback, bet_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence). There is no consistent verb_noun or noun-verb convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 43 tools, the server bundles at least five unrelated domains (Dota 2 stats, Pipeworx data querying, Polymarket analytics, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility). That is far too many for a focused MCP server, and the mix makes the surface feel like a grab bag rather than a purpose-built toolkit.

Completeness4/5

Each subdomain individually has solid coverage: Dota 2 has heroes/matches/players/tournaments/meta plus a GraphQL fallback, the data layer has discovery + routing + grounding + validation, and memory/subscriptions have full lifecycle operations. The only real gap is cohesion across domains; within each slice there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources