Skip to main content
Glama

Usda Fdc

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

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it internally calls 'ai_visibility_check' and returns ranking data, but omits details like rate limits or network dependency. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate value but not extensive behavioral context.

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?

The description is impressively concise: two sentences plus a usage example and output summary. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key action is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has 4 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function, internal workflow, and output format. It lacks details on ranking algorithm or edge cases, but overall is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and use the tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a small nuance about the 'entities' array (first entry as subject) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema 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 it compares AI visibility across multiple entities, using specific verbs like 'Compare', 'Probes', 'ranks', and 'surfaces'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ai_visibility_check' by indicating it handles multiple entities and from 'compare_entities' by specifying it focuses on AI recognition.

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 provides a clear use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., using 'ai_visibility_check' for a single entity). The context is strong but lacks exclusion guidance.

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

All Usda Fdc 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes USDA food data tools with a large number of unrelated tools (Polymarket betting, AI visibility, npm scanning, etc.), causing significant overlap in purpose. Many tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research all perform research/lookups with similar scopes, making it difficult for an agent to select the appropriate tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names generally follow a descriptive verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_foods, search_foods), but there is inconsistency in prefixes (ask_pipeworx vs. pipeworx_feedback vs. polymarket_arbitrage) and some names are long and varied. The naming is readable but not highly predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly focused on USDA Food Data Central. Many tools are unrelated to food (e.g., Polymarket, Kalshi, npm scanning, subscription management), making the server feel bloated and unfocused. A typical food data server would have 5-10 tools.

Completeness4/5

For the USDA FDC domain, the tool surface is complete: it includes list, search, get, and nutrient retrieval. However, the presence of many unrelated tools dilutes the server's focus. The food-specific operations are well-covered, but the overall server lacks coherence.

Resources