Skip to main content
Glama

Stripe_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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds that it probes each entity and ranks, and mentions output format. No contradictions; adds useful context beyond 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?

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with verb 'Compare', then explains mechanism, use case, and output. 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?

Covers purpose, internal mechanism, and output format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Could explicitly state descending sort order, but overall sufficient given schema coverage and no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description only mentions 'your brand + N competitors' but doesn't detail parameters. Schema provides full parameter explanations, so description adds minimal extra meaning.

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, probes each with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized. It differentiates from sibling ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic) by specifying the domain and internal mechanism.

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 explicit use case: competitive AI-marketing audits with example question 'does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?'. However, does not explicitly state when to avoid using it (e.g., for single entity use ai_visibility_check).

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

All Stripe_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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set has several near-duplicate entry points: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, while ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research and bet_research/polymarket_edges overlap heavily. Verbose descriptions help in isolation, but an agent must choose between many similar-looking research and prediction-market tools before it can act.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), prefixed families (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, stripe_*), and descriptive noun-style names (entity_profile, validate_claim) with no single verb_noun pattern. Each cluster is internally consistent, but the overall set is unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a server named Stripe_connect, especially since only 6 tools are actually Stripe-related and the rest are a sprawling Pipeworx data-research and prediction-market stack. The count would be heavy even for the broad research domain, and it is a serious scope mismatch for the stated name.

Completeness1/5

For the Stripe domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: it is read-only (get/list) with no way to create customers, take payments, issue refunds, update invoices, or manage subscription lifecycles. The non-Stripe research tools are broad, but that does not fill the payment workflow gap.

Resources