Skip to main content
Glama

Google_analytics

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds process details (probes each entity, ranks by score, surfaces most/least recognized) and return fields, providing useful behavioral context without conflicting 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?

Two concise sentences plus a quoted example. Front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, the use case, the process, and the return format. With full schema coverage and strong annotations, no critical information is missing.

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 the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds narrative context around 'entities' (your brand + competitors) but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, explicitly naming the underlying probe (ai_visibility_check) and the output (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). This distinguishes it from single-entity tools and generic comparators like compare_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 gives a clear use case (competitive AI-marketing audits) and an illustrative example. It implies when to use this tool instead of ai_visibility_check (multi-entity comparison), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so a small deduction.

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

All Google_analytics 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 and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research both route queries to the same 5,529 tools, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates. Only the small ga_* subset is clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency2/5

Conventions are mixed: GA tools use a ga_ prefix, but the majority use arbitrary names like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, remember, scan_dependency, and polymarket_arbitrage. No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy, and the vast majority (31) are unrelated Pipeworx utilities rather than Google Analytics functionality. Only 4 tools actually serve the stated GA purpose, making the count inappropriate for the server name.

Completeness2/5

For Google Analytics, the surface is minimal: list properties, metadata, realtime, and run report—no property management, user management, or data mutation. As a Pipeworx toolkit it's broad but lacks full lifecycle coverage for any single domain.

Resources