Skip to main content
Glama

Timeapi Io

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. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond by explaining 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 behavioral detail not present in annotations alone.

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 with no wasted words. First sentence states the primary purpose, second explains the mechanism, third gives a concrete use case and return format. Every sentence adds value.

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 has 4 well-documented parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool does, how it works (probes, ranks), and what it returns (score, confidence, signal density). It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds context about the first entity being treated as the subject for narrative, which is not explicitly in the schema. This small addition raises it above the baseline of 3.

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, probing each with ai_visibility_check and ranking by score. It provides a concrete use case ('does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?') and differentiates from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (which is a sub-operation) and compare_entities (general comparison vs AI-specific). The verb 'scan' and resource 'competitor AI presence' are specific.

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 frames the tool as useful for competitive AI-marketing audits, giving a clear scenario. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools for non-competitive contexts. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusion guidelines.

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

All Timeapi Io 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer natural-language data questions, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The current_time* variants and multiple Polymarket scanners also create real selection ambiguity, though the memory and subscription tools are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly lowercase snake_case and readable, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: some are imperative (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt) while others are object-first (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending). Subfamilies like current_time* and polymarket_* are internally consistent, but the overall set follows no predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

Forty tools is far too many for a server named Timeapi Io; only about nine tools actually relate to time zones and current time. The rest form a sprawling Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription platform, making this a mega-bundle rather than a well-scoped toolset.

Completeness3/5

The time-related surface covers current time, zone conversion, zone metadata, and ISO parsing, but lacks common date math or general formatting operations. The Pipeworx side is quite complete for research and fact-checking, but the mixed domain makes coverage uneven and hard to reason about as a single coherent service.

Resources