Skip to main content
Glama

Tenor

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 confirm read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the ranking behavior, output fields (score, confidence, signal density), and the probing mechanism. It does not contradict 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and packs critical information without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and it is efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 partially covers the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) but does not specify exact structure or field names. However, for a tool with four parameters and no nested objects, the description is fairly complete and leaves minimal ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds extra semantics: that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' for narrative and the rest as competitors, and that the context parameter is a shared context applied to every probe. This goes 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 clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities, uses ai_visibility_check as the underlying probe, and ranks them. It explicitly distinguishes from a single-entity check (ai_visibility_check sibling) and gives a concrete use case, making the purpose immediately understandable.

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 explains that the tool is for competitive AI-marketing audits and mentions it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from single-entity checks.

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

All Tenor 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have nearly identical purposes: autocomplete and search_suggestions both return query completions, ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and ai_visibility_check overlaps with scan_competitor_ai_presence. The detailed descriptions help for some, but the overlapping clusters create real confusion for an agent selecting a tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is a mix of single-word nouns (search, featured, posts, categories) and snake_case verb phrases (resolve_entity, compare_entities, ask_pipeworx), with modifier suffixes like _beta and _grounded. While the snake_case is consistent where used, the overall pattern is not uniform across the server.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is far too many for a server named 'Tenor' whose core GIF API needs only a handful. Much of the surface belongs to Pipeworx data, polymarket analytics, memory, and subscriptions—scope that belongs in a different server or a clearly separated package.

Completeness5/5

The Pipeworx side is remarkably complete: query (ask_pipeworx), grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, validation, discovery, memory, subscriptions, and specialized polymarket tools all cover their domain thoroughly. The Tenor side has search, browse, categories, trending, suggestions, and post retrieval—no critical dead ends.

Resources