Skip to main content
Glama

Trakt

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description provides behavioral details beyond annotations: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces most/least recognized, returns list with score/confidence/signal density. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or other 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?

Four sentences, each essential: purpose, mechanism, use case, output. No redundant or vague language. Front-loaded with key action.

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 no output schema, description fully explains return values (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity). Also explains process (probe each entity, compare). Sufficient for an agent to understand behavior.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds that first entity in entities is treated as subject and rest as competitors, adding meaning beyond schema. Also clarifies models options in context.

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?

Description clearly states it compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, using ai_visibility_check, and returns a ranked list. It distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check which checks single entities. Specific verb 'compare' and resource 'AI presence' with clear output.

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?

Explicitly mentions use case for competitive AI-marketing audits and gives example question. Implicitly shows when to use (multiple entities) vs. single entity check, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives other than ai_visibility_check.

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

All Trakt 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

The tool set has significant overlap among query and research tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research) and among entity/company tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes). Despite detailed descriptions, an agent would struggle to select the correct tool without careful reading, especially for nuanced differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool naming is inconsistent: some start with verbs (ask_, generate_, validate_, scan_, subscribe) while others are nouns (entity_profile, popular, trending, search, recent_alerts, recent_changes). The snake_case style is consistent, but the verb_noun pattern is not, making predictions of tool names difficult.

Tool Count3/5

38 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the scope is broad (general query, research, Trakt, subscriptions, memory). The count is appropriate for the wide range of functionality, though some tools could be merged to reduce cognitive load.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a very wide range of tasks: querying, research, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, Trakt operations, etc. For the Trakt domain, it has all essential operations (search, get, list, trending). The Pipeworx side has a comprehensive set for data access, grounding, and validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update for subscriptions), but overall it is well-covered.

Resources