Skip to main content
Glama

Transport Feeds

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. Does not mention rate limiting or multi-step behavior in detail, but sufficient given annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, then detail. Some redundancy ('side-by-side' and 'probes each entity') but overall efficient.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description clearly states return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and explains the process. Combined with annotations, it is complete for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no explanation of how 'models' or '_apiKey' affect behavior).

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?

Clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, using ai_visibility_check to probe, then ranks and surfaces most/least recognized. Distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic 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?

Provides clear usage context: 'competitive AI-marketing audits' with an example question. Implicitly suggests when to use (multiple entities) vs. ai_visibility_check (single entity), but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use.

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

All Transport Feeds 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is substantial overlap among the many question-answering tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, compare_entities, entity_profile, recent_changes) and the prediction-market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread). While each has nuanced differences, agents will struggle to select the right one, especially with several 'ask_pipeworx' variants that behave nearly identically.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names use snake_case, but patterns vary widely: some are verb_noun (list_feeds, read_feed, subscribe, unsubscribe, remember), others are noun_phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending, entity_profile), and a few like 'ask_pipeworx' and 'bet_research' don't follow a consistent structure. The mixed conventions make prediction of new tool names difficult.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, this is far too many for a server named 'Transport Feeds'. The majority of tools are unrelated to transport feeds, covering generic data research, prediction markets, and memory utilities. The count overwhelms any focused purpose and would require extensive discovery to navigate.

Completeness3/5

For the actual data-research and prediction-market functions, the surface is quite complete—covering lookups, comparisons, grounded verification, arbitrage scans, fill risk, trending, and subscriptions. However, for the declared domain (transport feeds), there are only two feed-specific tools (list_feeds, read_feed) with no write/update/delete operations, leaving obvious gaps.

Resources