Skip to main content
Glama

Intercom

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description goes beyond by revealing it probes each entity with 'ai_visibility_check', ranks by score, and surfaces recognition. No contradictions and adds valuable procedural context.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, no filler. Every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, method, and use case efficiently.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the workflow (probe, rank, return), use case, and output details (score, confidence, signal density). Lacks exact output format but is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the first entity is treated as 'subject', that 'models' is optional, and 'context' disambiguates. This extra context aids selection.

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 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ai_visibility_check' (single probe) and 'compare_entities' (generic 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 explicit context: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and an example question, implying when to use it. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternatives but still offers strong guidance.

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

All Intercom 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 have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route factual questions to the same underlying catalog with unclear boundaries. Polymarket tools also overlap (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage), and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are nearly the same operation.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, resolve_entity, list_subscriptions). However, the set mixes two distinct naming families — ic_* for Intercom tools and pipeworx/* for the rest — and includes ambiguous generic names like remember/recall/forget that don't visually connect to the rest.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far more than needed for an Intercom-focused server; the vast majority have nothing to do with Intercom and instead cover a sprawling Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, and memory/subscription toolkit. The count alone is in the 'too many' range, and the scope mismatch makes it feel even more inflated.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Intercom, the surface is severely incomplete: only read/list/search operations exist for contacts and conversations, with no create, update, delete, send-message, or company-detail operations. The unrelated Pipeworx tools are fairly broad, but they don't compensate for the missing Intercom lifecycle coverage that the server name promises.

Resources