Skip to main content
Glama

Pub Dev

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description explains internal behavior (probes each entity with ai_visibility_check), output structure (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density), and does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotent, etc.).

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, front-loaded with key action, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return format sufficiently. All necessary context (parameters, use case, internal call) is covered.

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% and includes detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the schema's first-entity-as-subject convention, so 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 it compares AI visibility across multiple entities, uses ai_visibility_check, and ranks results. It differentiates from sibling 'ai_visibility_check' which is a single-entity probe.

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 gives explicit use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and example question. It mentions the underlying tool but does not discuss when not to use or compare with other siblings like 'compare_entities'.

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

All Pub Dev 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have clear functional boundaries, but there is meaningful overlap at the top level: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share one routing pipeline, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. The six polymarket_* tools also form a dense family where an agent must read long descriptions to distinguish arbitrage scanning from edge detection from fill-risk evaluation.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun or domain-prefix conventions, which makes the set much more predictable than its count suggests. Minor deviations exist: ask_pipeworx variants are product-noun phrases, polymarket_edges is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led tool, and pairs like polymarket_edges vs polymarket_edge_tracker are easy to misread.

Tool Count2/5

With 31 tools, this server is above the 25+ threshold and feels overloaded for a single MCP surface. It mixes broad data research, prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and niche utilities like generate_llms_txt, so the set is more like several related servers merged together.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is well covered: discovery, single-answer routing, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, change tracking, subscription lifecycle, and even memory primitives. Missing are minor lifecycle refinements such as updating an existing subscription, and the number of overlapping entry points makes it slightly harder to guarantee the agent will always choose the intended path.

Resources