Skip to main content
Glama

Trove

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explaining that the tool probes each entity with 'ai_visibility_check' and returns a ranked list, providing behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, behavior, and usage context. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes an example. Slightly more structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) could improve scanability, but it is concise.

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 description explains what the tool returns (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) despite no output schema. It also clarifies that it uses 'ai_visibility_check' internally. It does not mention error handling or dependencies, but the annotations and schema provide sufficient context.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described in the input schema. The description does not add new parameter-level information, but it reinforces the usage pattern (e.g., first entity as subject). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive 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 a specific verb 'Compare' and resource 'AI visibility' across multiple entities, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ai_visibility_check' (single entity) and 'compare_entities' (generic). The example query 'does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?' clarifies the intended use case.

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 states when to use this tool ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and implies an alternative ('ai_visibility_check' for single entity checking). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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

All Trove 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all answer questions; entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes all cover company data). Descriptions provide distinctions, but an agent can easily misselect, especially between the Pipeworx query tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow mixed conventions: some use verb_noun (list_subscriptions, unsubscribe), others use descriptive phrases (ai_visibility_check, polymarket_arbitrage) or nouns (deep_research, entity_profile). No consistent pattern, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools covering diverse domains (data lookups, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), the server feels overloaded. The scope would be better served by splitting into smaller, focused servers (e.g., data query, prediction market, memory). Many tools are peripheral to a core purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is fairly comprehensive within its domains: CRUD for memory (remember/recall/forget), subscription management, extensive data query options, and prediction market analysis. Minor gaps exist (no update memory, no direct trading), but agents can work around them.

Resources