Skip to main content
Glama

Themeparks

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. This provides valuable context without contradicting 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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence provides a clear summary. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff. The structure is logical: overview, process, use case, and output.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, batch operation), the description comprehensively covers input, process, and output. There is no output schema, so the description adequately describes the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity). All essential behavioral aspects are covered.

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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'entities' first entry is the subject, and 'context' disambiguates common names. It also clarifies the 'models' parameter's default and the dependency on _apiKey. This adds value 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 uses specific verbs like 'compare', 'probes', 'ranks', and 'surfaces' to clearly state the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check and compare_entities by explicitly describing the multi-entity comparison and ranking aspect. The example use case 'competitive AI-marketing audits' further clarifies its purpose.

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 provides clear usage context: 'useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and an example question. It implicitly excludes single-entity checks (which would use ai_visibility_check) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list prerequisites like needing an API key for certain models. The note about the first entity being the 'subject' is helpful.

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

All Themeparks 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct, well-documented purposes, but several overlap or are explicitly redundant: ask_pipeworx_beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve as discovery entry points, and scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check. The thematic split between theme-park, data-lookup, prediction-market, and memory tools also forces agents to navigate unrelated clusters.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (list_destinations, get_wait_times, remember, resolve_entity), noun_phrase (entity_profile, recent_changes, bet_research), and brand-prefixed nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). Within families the patterns are consistent, but across the set the conventions are inconsistent and sometimes reverse the verb/noun order, making the surface harder to predict.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy, and the server is named Themeparks yet only 4 tools actually relate to theme parks. The remaining 31 tools span Pipeworx data retrieval, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, creating a bloated and misaligned scope. A tightly scoped theme-park server would need far fewer tools, and a general data research server would not be named Themeparks.

Completeness2/5

For the implied theme-park domain, the surface is thin: list destinations, get entity metadata, get schedule, and get wait times cover basic lookups but omit search, attraction details beyond waits, historical data, pricing, dining/show info, and park updates. The non-theme-park tools are extensive, but they do not complete the server's apparent stated purpose.

Resources