Skip to main content
Glama

Ted Eu

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide safety cues (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds that the tool calls ai_visibility_check internally and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. No contradiction with 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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loads the main action, and includes a concrete example. Every sentence adds necessary context with no redundancy.

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?

Given the rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the return format (ranked list with metrics), parameter details, and use case. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description. No gaps are evident.

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% with clear descriptions. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the role of the first entity (subject for narrative), explaining the models default, the necessity of _apiKey for Anthropic, and the purpose of context to disambiguate names.

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 uses a specific verb 'Compare AI visibility' and identifies the resource 'multiple entities side-by-side'. It distinguishes itself from its most obvious sibling 'ai_visibility_check' by emphasizing the comparison aspect and the internal use of that tool. It is clear and 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?

The description explicitly states the use case: 'competitive AI-marketing audits' and provides an example question. It mentions that the first entity is treated as the subject. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or directly point to alternatives, though the sibling list includes ai_visibility_check for single-entity probes.

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

All Ted Eu 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose described in detail. Even tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are differentiated by hallucination resistance, account requirements, and use cases. Polymarket tools are each specialized (arbitrage, edges, fill risk, etc.). No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow snake_case consistently. They use descriptive verb-noun patterns (e.g., ask_pipeworx, bet_research, compare_entities, subscribe). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous names.

Tool Count4/5

32 tools is on the higher side but justified by the server's broad scope covering company research, prediction markets, data lookups, memory, subscriptions, and more. Each tool serves a distinct function, though the count might feel slightly heavy for a single server.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers core workflows for company analysis, prediction market operations, data retrieval, and system management (memory, subscriptions). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for non-company entity profiles beyond drugs), but the overall surface is comprehensive for the intended multi-purpose assistant.

Resources