Skip to main content
Glama

VarynForge

Set competitor importance

set_competitor_importance
Destructive

Mark a competitor important, default, or ignored. Important applies a 1.25× boost on opportunity scores for clusters where the competitor ranks top-10. Scores are then normalized 0-100 against the highest-scoring cluster, so other clusters may appear to drop in relative ranking even when their absolute (raw) scores did not change — cross-check via get_opportunity_detail.rawOpportunityScore. Ignored hides the competitor from competitor surfaces and the editorial-score pipeline.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextYesOne sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.
companyIdYes
projectIdYes
importanceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "One sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "projectId",
      -  "companyId",
      -  "importance"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "projectId",
      +  "companyId",
      +  "importance",
      +  "context"
      +]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the 1.25× score boost, the 0-100 normalization side effect, the possibility of relative ranking drops, the pointer to rawOpportunityScore for verification, and the hiding behavior of 'ignored.' This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying necessary information: the action, the scoring mechanics, and the hiding behavior. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

For a mutating tool with a required enum and important side effects, the description is broadly complete: it explains consequences, offers a cross-check path, and defines the ignored state. It could slightly improve by explicitly naming the 'default' behavior, but this is a minor gap.

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?

The description clarifies the importance enum by explaining what 'important' and 'ignored' do, but it does not explicitly map companyId to the competitor or projectId to the containing project. With schema description coverage at only 25%, more semantic coverage of the ID parameters would have strengthened this.

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 precise verb and object: 'Mark a competitor important, default, or ignored.' It then explains what each state does, making the tool's purpose concrete and distinct from relatives like add_competitor_by_domain or get_competitor_detail.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The effects of 'important' and 'ignored' give useful contextual guidance for when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as add_competitor_by_domain or state when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources