Skip to main content
Glama

Useragent

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining that it internally calls ai_visibility_check, ranks results, and returns score, confidence, and signal density. No contradiction 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?

Three sentences: purpose, process, and use case. Front-loaded, no fluff, earns every sentence.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description mentions 'Returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity', which adequately describes the output. Also covers entity count constraint (2-8). Complete for the tool's purpose.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; the schema already explains the 'entities' parameter's role (first as subject) and other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side' and details the process of probing with ai_visibility_check and ranking. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'ai_visibility_check' by focusing on multiple entities.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and an example query. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other 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 Useragent 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all perform overlapping routed-search functions; ask_pipeworx_beta is even documented as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. The three Polymarket discovery tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) also have blurry boundaries around finding vs. validating vs. executing on edges.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools use snake_case with a verb_noun or descriptive pattern (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, resolve_entity, list_subscriptions). Minor deviations exist — bare verbs like remember/recall/forget and noun_first names like bet_research or entity_profile — but the convention is largely predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy, and the set spans unrelated domains: Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market trading, agent memory, subscription management, npm dependency checks, user-agent parsing, and llms.txt generation. The sub-clusters each earn their place individually, but as a single server surface the count is unjustifiably large and scattershot.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx research surface is quite complete (lookup, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, validation, entity resolution, discovery, feedback), and memory/subscription lifecycles are fully covered. However, the server has no coherent single domain — user-agent parsing (the server's namesake) has only one tool, while unrelated utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency appear with no supporting ecosystem.

Resources