Skip to main content
Glama

superhero

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized entities. It also discloses the return format (score, confidence, signal density), adding valuable behavioral context without contradicting the read-only and idempotent hints.

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?

The description is three focused sentences with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and includes a concrete example, making every sentence purposeful.

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?

For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return value. It gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, including the ranking mechanism and output fields.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only reiterates the first-entity-as-subject behavior already documented. No additional guidance on models, apiKey, or context is provided, making 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: comparing AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side. It specifies the action (compare), the resource (AI presence), and the method (using ai_visibility_check), distinguishing it from the singular ai_visibility_check tool and generic compare_entities.

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?

It explicitly provides a use case (competitive AI-marketing audits) with an example query, making when-to-use clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention exclusions, stopping short of a full 5.

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

All superhero 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
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is dominated by a huge number of unrelated tools for data lookup (Pipeworx, Polymarket, etc.), with only 4 superhero-specific tools. Many tools serve overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, suggest_questions all handle general queries), making it very difficult for an agent to distinguish the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are highly inconsistent: some tools use CamelCase (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools), others use snake_case (get_hero, list_all, compare_entities), and some use long descriptive phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_competitor_ai_presence). This mixture makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 34 tools, the count is far too large for a server named 'superhero'. Most tools are unrelated to superheroes, making the set seem bloated and misaligned with the server's stated purpose. A focused superhero server would need at most 10 tools.

Completeness1/5

For the superhero domain, the tool set is severely incomplete: only basic retrieval of heroes and powerstats, with no search, filtering, creation, comparison, or battle mechanisms. For the broader data access domain it is more complete, but that is not the server's name.

Resources