Skip to main content
Glama

Treasury Fiscal

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: each entity is probed via ai_visibility_check, results are ranked by score, and output includes score, confidence, signal density. No contradictions with 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 with clear front-loading of purpose, followed by method and usage. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, calls another tool internally, and has no output schema. The description adequately covers functionality, input interpretation, and output format. Missing details on error handling or rate limits, but annotations partially cover safety.

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. The description adds extra meaning: first entity is the subject, rest are competitors; context parameter disambiguates names. This goes beyond schema field descriptions.

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, with a specific verb (compare), resource (AI visibility), and scope (multiple entities). It distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check which does single probes.

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?

Explicit usage context is given: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' with an example. It mentions the underlying probe tool (ai_visibility_check) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tool names for single-entity checks.

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

All Treasury Fiscal 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
Disambiguation2/5

Most of the surface is dominated by overlapping meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) plus paired helpers (discover_tools/suggest_questions, ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence), so an agent can easily pick the wrong one. The seven treasury_* tools are clearly distinct, but they are a small island in a much larger ambiguous set.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are broadly snake_case and family-prefixed (treasury_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), which helps, but the pattern is not consistently verb_noun: ask_pipeworx, bet_research, entity_profile, deep_research, search_within, and recent_changes mix verb, noun, and product-specific naming styles. Within families it is readable, but across the whole set it is inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is too many for a server whose label is 'Treasury Fiscal'; only about six tools are treasury-specific and the rest are unrelated research, betting, memory, and subscription utilities. This is well into the 25+ heavy range and would make tool selection expensive and error-prone.

Completeness2/5

For a Treasury/Fiscal server the surface is thin: debt, receipts, customs duty, average rates, exchange rates, and net cost cover only a slice of Treasury data. Missing obvious components such as daily yield curves, auction calendars/results, federal outlays/spending by agency or function, and tax or appropriations data; the broad ask_pipeworx router softens but does not fill these as first-class tools.

Resources