find_competitors
Real competitors and alternatives for a company, extracted from live research and returned as structured rows.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| domain | Yes |
StackResolve
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context by noting the data comes from 'live research' and is 'returned as structured rows,' implying a read-oriented, potentially slower operation. However, it does not describe failure modes, rate limits, latency implications, or what happens when no competitors are found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with the useful behavioral details of live research and structured rows.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and minimal parameter documentation, so the description must provide more complete invocation context. It omits the input format for domain, the meaning of limit, and any relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess important details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters domain and limit. It only loosely maps 'for a company' to the domain parameter and says nothing about the semantics of limit, such as whether it caps row count, defaults, or ordering.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool returns 'real competitors and alternatives for a company,' which clearly identifies the resource and expected output. It uses 'extracted from live research' and 'returned as structured rows' to describe the action, but lacks an explicit verb like 'find' and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like research_company or compare_companies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as research_company, compare_companies, or get_company. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or hints about when to prefer one tool over another.
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
C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
resolve and find_tools_for_task both return ranked tool recommendations for a task, and how_to also surfaces recommendedTools, making their boundaries unclear. search_tools adds further overlap as a registry search by query and requirements. The company/research and registry lookup tools are more distinct, but the task-to-tool cluster is genuinely confusing.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming is almost entirely snake_case verb_noun: get_company, find_competitors, search_tools, compare_products, list_registry. The exceptions are audit and resolve as bare verbs and how_to as an idiom, but they are still recognizable.
Tool Count4/5
Fifteen tools is at the upper end of a reasonable range, and the broad scope of registry lookup, research, comparison, audit, and interface generation supports a larger surface. However, find_tools_for_task largely duplicates resolve, so the count is slightly higher than necessary.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the main registry lifecycle: listing, searching, getting records, comparing, researching, pricing, readiness auditing, and generating agent interfaces. It is intentionally read/research-oriented, so the lack of registry CRUD is not a severe gap. Minor missing pieces like direct per-product OpenAPI retrieval or registry entry management are workable around.