Skip to main content
Glama

Google_docs

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it probes each entity with 'ai_visibility_check', ranks results, and returns scores, confidence, and signal density. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description complements rather than repeats.

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 three focused sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with use case and output details. Excellent conciseness.

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?

For a tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers process and output fields. Missing elements like exact error handling or entity count constraints are covered by the schema. The description is complete enough for effective tool selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 value by explaining that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' and that the context parameter disambiguates common names. This provides semantic guidance 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: comparing AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side. It uses specific verbs ('Compare', 'Probes', 'ranks') and identifies the resource ('AI visibility'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ai_visibility_check' (single entity) and 'compare_entities' (broader) by focusing on AI recognition scores.

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 clear context for use: competitive AI-marketing audits, with an example question. It implicitly differentiates from the single-entity 'ai_visibility_check' sibling. Although it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, the context is sufficient for an AI agent to decide.

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

All Google_docs 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are nearly indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior, while ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research heavily overlap with the same router. The dense Polymarket tool cluster and discovery tools (discover_tools vs suggest_questions) further blur boundaries, though many individual tools do have distinct niches.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case, which helps, but the convention is mixed: some are verb_noun (docs_create, list_subscriptions), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research), and one uses a suffix (ask_pipeworx_beta). It is readable but not a predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is already above the 25+ threshold, but the bigger problem is that the server is named Google_docs and only 6 of the 37 tools relate to Google Docs. The remaining 31 tools form a broad data-research and prediction-market platform, making the set feel bloated and mislabeled for its apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a Google Docs server, the surface is incomplete: you can create, read, insert, replace, and append text, but there is no delete, no list/search, no formatting control, and no permission handling. The extensive Pipeworx and Polymarket tools cover a different domain entirely, so they do not fill the gaps in the docs workflow.

Resources