get_competitor_detailGet a competitor company detail in a project context — domain, name, importance, top pages in the project SERPs, and top keywords they rank for.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | Yes | One sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose. | |
| companyId | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / contextAdded value: +{
+ "description": "One sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "companyId",
- "projectId"
-]New value: +[
+ "companyId",
+ "projectId",
+ "context"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe read-only nature, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It adds the specific return fields and project scoping, which is useful, but it does not describe error scenarios, permissions, or pagination behavior. This is acceptable for a simple getter but not exceptional.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that front-loads the action and project context while listing the key return fields. There is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple get-by-ID purpose, the description covers the return values adequately even without an output schema. It names the main outputs and project scoping. A slightly richer explanation of what happens when the competitor is not found would improve completeness, but the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only the context parameter explained. The description mentions 'project context' but does not clarify the roles of companyId and projectId beyond their self-evident names and UUID format. With low coverage, the description should compensate more explicitly for the undocumented parameters, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool retrieves a competitor company detail within a project context and enumerates the returned fields (domain, name, importance, top SERP pages, top keywords). It is specific about the verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like list_competitors or set_competitor_importance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_competitors or get_keyword_detail. It implies a detail lookup but does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions carefully cross-reference close alternatives (e.g., add_article_suggestion vs create_article_suggestion_with_input vs accept_idea). A few brief/read variants like get_article_brief, get_write_handoff, and download_brief_markdown could still be confused despite helpful explanations, so the set is not perfectly unambiguous.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern throughout: get_*, list_*, create_*, update_*, set_*, add_*, delete_*, start_*, expand_*, etc. Even the less common names like lint_draft and remap_asset are still clear verb_noun constructions.
At 57 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ extreme threshold for a single MCP server. Even for a broad content workflow, the surface is overwhelming and would benefit from consolidation or splitting into focused servers.
The tool set covers the full content lifecycle: project setup, research runs, opportunity clustering, suggestion creation, brief generation, drafting, linting, publishing, reporting, and account management. Minor gaps exist—destinations and projects cannot be deleted via MCP, and there is no direct update for article suggestion metadata—but these are workable via the web UI or existing tools.