Skip to main content
Glama

Wikipathways

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by revealing the internal mechanism of probing with ai_visibility_check and specifying the output format (ranked list with score, confidence, 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?

The description is concise at three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the main action, explaining the process, and providing a use case. No unnecessary 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?

The description explains the return format and use case, compensating for the lack of output schema. It covers behavior, input semantics, and output shape. It does not address error handling or rate limits, but is sufficient for a read-only comparison 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by explaining that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' and the rest as competitors, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the 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 specific verbs like 'compare', 'probes', 'ranks', and 'surfaces' to clearly state the tool's purpose: comparing AI visibility across multiple entities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'ai_visibility_check' by focusing on multi-entity comparison.

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 concrete use case for competitive AI-marketing audits and explains that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check. It implicitly suggests usage over the single-entity tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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

All Wikipathways 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
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is severely mismatched: only 3 of 34 tools (get_pathway, list_pathways, search_pathways) relate to WikiPathways while the rest form overlapping Pipeworx/Polymarket families (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded; multiple polymarket_* tools) with unclear boundaries and overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are highly inconsistent: product-specific names (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending), generic memory verbs (remember, recall, forget), and mixed snake_case patterns with no unifying verb_noun structure. The names do not reflect the WikiPathways domain at all.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is far too many for a WikiPathways server, which only needs a handful of pathway-related operations. Nearly all tools belong to unrelated domains (SEC, FDA, Polymarket, npm, etc.), making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

For the stated WikiPathways purpose, only get, list, and search are present—no create, update, or delete operations—leaving obvious lifecycle gaps. The extensive non-WikiPathways tools do not contribute to the server's apparent domain coverage and create dead ends for agents expecting pathway management.

Resources