Skip to main content
Glama

universities

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds that it 'probes each entity' with ai_visibility_check and returns a ranked list with score/confidence/signal density, which is not in annotations. This clarifies the orchestration behavior.

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?

Four sentences with no fluff; front-loaded with the core purpose. The use case and return description earn their place.

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?

No output schema, but the description explicitly states the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It also names the underlying probe, providing context for an agent to decide if this is the right batch tool. It doesn't mention rate limits or per-probe errors, but these are minor gaps given schema coverage.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including the entities' first-entry-as-subject behavior. The description adds no new parameter syntax but contextualizes entities as 'your brand + N competitors'.

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 it 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side', naming the resource (AI visibility) and the verb (compare). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'across multiple entities' and the ranking behavior, which differentiates it from the single-entity ai_visibility_check.

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?

It gives a concrete use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question. It indicates that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, implying the alternative for single entity, but doesn't explicitly exclude other comparison tools like compare_entities.

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

All universities 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers, and the five polymarket_* tools all deal with prediction-market edge detection and filling risk. Memory and subscription tools are clear, but the data-access and research tools require careful reading to avoid selecting the wrong entry point.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern such as search_universities and resolve_entity, but the set mixes product-prefixed names (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research). The ask_pipeworx_beta suffix also introduces a naming convention not used elsewhere.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools, the server exceeds the heavy threshold, and almost all tools are unrelated to the apparent 'universities' domain—only search_universities matches the server name. The count might suit a broad data-research platform, but it is poorly scoped for this server's stated identity.

Completeness1/5

For the domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: only a name/country university search exists, with no university detail, ranking, program, admissions, or comparison coverage. Agents would dead-end immediately after finding a list of universities.

Resources