Skip to main content
Glama

W3c

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks results, and returns score/confidence/signal density. This provides useful 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (4 sentences) with front-loaded main function. It provides all necessary information without unnecessary fluff.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes return format ('ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity'). It could mention the allowed entity count range (2-8) explicitly, but schema covers this.

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 insight that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' and that context disambiguates names, but does not significantly expand on schema definitions.

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 side-by-side, differentiating from sibling ai_visibility_check which likely handles single entities. It uses specific verbs ('compare', 'ranks') and specifies the resource ('AI visibility across 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 explains when to use it ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and provides a concrete example question. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like ai_visibility_check 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 W3c 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
Disambiguation3/5

The three ask_pipeworx variants plus deep_research and validate_claim overlap heavily on the same routing capability — ask_pipeworx_beta is even explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The polymarket tools (arbitrage/edges/edge_tracker/fill_risk/kalshi_spread) form a second cluster with fuzzy boundaries, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap. However, most other tools (w3c_search, spec, remember/recall/forget, subscribe/unsubscribe) have clear distinct roles.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are generally descriptive snake_case with recognizable prefix families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, w3c_*), but verb usage is inconsistent: passive labels like ai_visibility_check and entity_profile sit alongside imperatives like recall, forget, subscribe, and resolve_. There's no uniform verb_noun or noun_pattern convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is over the heavy threshold, and the count is wildly mismatched to the server's claimed identity: the server is named 'W3c' yet only 2 of 33 tools (w3c_search, w3c_spec) relate to W3C. The remaining 31 form a sprawling Pipeworx data/prediction-market service that would justify its own server, making this aggregation incoherent.

Completeness3/5

For its actual purpose (broad data research + prediction markets), the surface is fairly complete: search, grounded answers, deep research, comparison, entity profiles, entity resolution, memory, subscriptions, and feedback cover the main workflows. But for the server's stated W3C purpose, only search and spec-detail exist with no broader standards tooling. The domain mismatch makes completeness hard to credit.

Resources