Skip to main content
Glama

Rcsb Pdb

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
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 adds value by explaining the probing process (via ai_visibility_check), ranking logic, and output structure (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). This goes beyond the annotations while staying consistent.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, mechanism, use case, and return value. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description takes responsibility for explaining returns, which it does ('ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity'). It covers the process and use case well. Minor omissions like error behavior or rate limits are not critical given the read-only annotation and moderate complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema, though it clarifies the role of entities (your brand vs competitors) which is already in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ai_visibility_check by specifying multi-entity comparison and from generic compare_entities by focusing on AI visibility, ranking, and competitive audits.

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 a concrete use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example query. It implies this tool is for comparing multiple entities rather than probing a single one, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Overall, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

All Rcsb Pdb 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical in purpose, and structure/summary both fetch PDB entries. The server name 'Rcsb Pdb' doesn't match most tools, which are Pipeworx data tools, compounding ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Mostly snake_case verb_noun, but verbs are inconsistent (ask, discover, generate, list, recall) and some names are noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges). No clear pattern unifies the set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly about RCSB PDB; only 6 tools relate to PDB while 31 serve unrelated Pipeworx functionality. The count feels like a bundled grab-bag rather than a focused toolset.

Completeness3/5

The PDB-specific tools cover the core operations (search, fetch, assembly, ligand, polymer entity), so the structural biology surface is mostly complete. However, the server's overall purpose is muddled, and the Pipeworx tools are a separate domain that happens to be bundled in, making it unclear what 'completeness' even means for this server.

Resources