Skip to main content
Glama

Theaudiodb

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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral context: probes each entity, ranks by score, surfaces most/least recognized. 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no wasted words. It efficiently conveys what the tool does and when it's useful.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and high-level behavior. It mentions return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) which compensates for missing output schema.

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 4 parameters. The description adds context: first entity treated as subject, context is shared across probes, and explains model defaults and when to use anthropic key. This adds value beyond 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 side-by-side, using ai_visibility_check and ranking by score. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (likely different comparison).

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 explicitly says it's useful for competitive AI-marketing audits and gives an example question. It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the example.

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

All Theaudiodb 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool families blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical by admission), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same 5,721 tools, and the six polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) heavily overlap on prediction-market analysis. The descriptions are verbose but an agent would struggle to reliably pick the right one without reading thousands of words.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but conventions vary: verb_noun (get_artist, search_album, list_subscriptions), noun-first (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, recent_alerts), bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe), and vendor prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). More importantly, the server is named Theaudiodb yet almost none of the tool names reflect music, making the naming misleading about the server's actual scope.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is over the threshold for a well-scoped server, and the sprawl is severe: 4 music tools, roughly 20 data-research tools, 6 prediction-market tools, memory utilities, subscription management, npm scanning, and AI-visibility checks. This is not one coherent server but several servers' tool sets bolted together, with no unifying purpose that justifies the count.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Theaudiodb, coverage is thin: search_artist, search_album, get_artist, and get_album_tracks exist, but there is no search_track, no get_album metadata by ID (only its tracks), no trending/browse-by-genre, and get_artist requires an ID only obtainable by searching first. Meanwhile the 31 non-music tools suggest the real domain is actually Pipeworx data research, making the overall surface feel like an incoherent mix where neither domain is fully covered.

Resources