Skip to main content
Glama

Microsoft Onenote

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
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false. Description adds that it 'probes each entity... with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces which is most/least recognized' and returns 'score, confidence, signal density'. This adds detail but does not reveal significant behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. The description carries limited additional transparency burden due to complete 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 sentences, zero wasted words. First sentence states action and mechanism, second provides use case and output. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 explains return values (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and the ranking algorithm. It covers the four parameters implicitly through the action description. Missing an explicit mention of the dependency on ai_visibility_check or that calling anthropic requires an API key, but schema descriptions handle that. Overall sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context: it explains the probing mechanism ('with ai_visibility_check'), the ranking process ('ranks by score, surfaces which is most/least recognized'), and the output format ('score, confidence, signal density per entity'). This provides meaningful behavioral semantics beyond the schema's type 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'compare', 'probe', 'rank', and 'surface' applied to 'AI visibility across multiple entities'. It differentiates from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic comparison) by specifying it uses ai_visibility_check internally and focuses on AI recognition. The resource and action are unambiguous.

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?

Description explicitly gives a use case: 'competitive AI-marketing audits' with an example question. It implies when to use (comparing multiple entities) and references ai_visibility_check as the underlying probe, suggesting single-entity checks should use that tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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

All Microsoft Onenote 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 are genuinely easy to confuse: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as currently identical, and the five polymarket_* tools overlap significantly in purpose. There are also wrapper-like pairs such as ai_visibility_check vs. scan_competitor_ai_presence and entity_profile vs. recent_changes vs. compare_entities that require reading long descriptions to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are mostly lowercase snake_case and readable, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: entity_profile and recent_changes are noun phrases, pipeworx_trending and pipeworx_feedback use a prefix, ask_pipeworx_beta is a single-family variant, and scan_competitor_ai_presence uses a different structure from ai_visibility_check. The naming is not chaotic, but it is a mix of conventions.

Tool Count1/5

A server labeled Microsoft Onenote exposes 31 tools, none of which actually relate to OneNote note-taking, notebooks, or pages. Even as a general research/prediction-market server, 31 tools is far above the coherent range, and for the stated product purpose this count is wildly inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

For the server's declared OneNote domain, there is zero coverage: no tools for creating, reading, updating, or deleting notes, pages, sections, or notebooks. The actual tool surface is centered on Pipeworx data lookups, Polymarket arbitrage, and memory helpers, which leaves the apparent note-taking domain completely unrepresented.

Resources