Skip to main content
Glama

swapi

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses the probing method (probes each entity with ai_visibility_check), ranking behavior, and return fields (score, confidence, signal density). Safety aspects are already covered by annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds meaningful operational context beyond them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences efficiently convey purpose, method, use case, and output. The quoted example is illustrative and not redundant. Slightly more verbose than the minimal two-sentence ideal but still crisp and well-structured.

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?

For a comparative read-only tool, the description covers purpose, method, use case, and output shape. Since no output schema exists, it compensates by listing return metrics (score, confidence, signal density). It does not discuss latency or failure modes, but these are minor given the annotations and simplicity.

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 descriptions for all four parameters, including the special rule that the first entity is the 'subject'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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?

The description clearly states 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling ai_visibility_check by explicitly addressing multiple entities and from compare_entities by focusing on AI presence and ranking.

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 a concrete use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an illustrative question ('does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?'). It implies use for multi-entity comparison versus single-entity ai_visibility_check but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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

All swapi 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set mixes two unrelated domains (Star Wars and Pipeworx data services), which is initially confusing. Within the Pipeworx suite, tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are clearly differentiated, but some overlap exists (e.g., deep_research vs. compare_entities both do multi-source lookups). Overall, most tools have distinct purposes, but the domain mismatch lowers clarity.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use snake_case consistently (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, resolve_entity). The naming pattern is mostly verb_noun or descriptive_compound, which is predictable. Minor deviation: some tools start with a verb (ask_pipeworx) while others start with a noun (entity_profile), but the style is uniform.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the high side but not unreasonable for a data-heavy server. However, the set covers two distinct domains (Star Wars and Pipeworx), making it feel bloated. The count could be reduced by separating the domains or pruning rarely-used tools.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx side appears comprehensive, covering queries, profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, alerts, and memory. The Star Wars side is incomplete—it lacks tools for vehicles, species, or individual characters (only search_people exists). The overall surface has gaps in one of its two domains.

Resources