Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Track competitors from your AI assistant: change feed, page snapshots, labels and alerts.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
CofounderGPT/competitor-tracker-mcp
GitHub Stars
0
Server Listing
Competitor Tracker & Co.

Available Tools

1 tool
start_tracking_competitorsStart tracking competitors for someoneAInspect

Set someone up with competitor tracking before they have an account, and hand them a link to take it over.

Name the companies they care about, by name or by domain. We match them against the companies we already track and the first three you list go on file, with their change history readable straight away. We do not fetch an address you supply: a company we do not track yet comes back in shortfalls, which is not a failure — it is something the person can add themselves once they have claimed.

Call this ONCE per person, with every company you know about. If more come up later, use add_tracked_competitors to fill the remaining slots on the same organization rather than calling this again — a second call here starts a second organization with a second link, and the person ends up with two things to claim instead of one.

Nothing is charged to anyone, no email is sent and the organization is removed after four days unless someone claims it. The claim link comes back in the response and travels no further, so pass it on and tell them what went on file and what did not.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companiesYesCompany names or domains, in the order they matter to the person you are acting for, e.g. ['Notion', 'linear.app']. The first three we already track get the slots; everything else comes back in shortfalls.
sessionIdNoYour own id for the conversation this ask came from. It ties the claim link back to where it started and is never treated as a credential. Leave it out if you have none.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing side effects and lifecycle behavior: the organization is removed after four days, nothing is charged, no email is sent, the claim link is returned only to the caller, and shortfalls are explicitly a non-failure outcome. This is rich behavioral context that helps the agent set expectations correctly.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place. The purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance is clearly separated, and the behavioral caveats are grouped logically. Despite its length, it remains scannable and contains no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the response behavior (claim link, shortfalls, change history), what the caller should do with the result, and the operational constraints around claiming and expiration. Nothing critical appears to be missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that company order matters, that the first three tracked companies are selected, and that unknown companies appear in shortfalls. It does not add much for sessionId, but the schema describes it adequately.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Set someone up with competitor tracking before they have an account, and hand them a link to take it over.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the related add_tracked_competitors tool by explaining that this is the initial setup call, not an incremental addition.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit usage guidance: call once per person, include all known companies, use add_tracked_competitors for later additions, and avoid a second call to avoid a duplicate organization. This is direct, actionable, and names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedstart_tracking_competitors

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another tool. Its purpose is clearly focused on starting competitor tracking for a new person.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name follows a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern: `start_tracking_competitors`. There are no other tools to conflict with this style.

Tool Count2/5

One tool is too few for the apparent scope: the description explicitly references `add_tracked_competitors` as a necessary follow-up tool, but that tool is not available in this server. The set feels incomplete rather than intentionally minimal.

Completeness2/5

The server covers only the initial setup step. It cannot add more competitors later, manage the organization, or resolve shortfalls, and it relies on a missing `add_tracked_competitors` tool for continued use. This leaves the workflow with a significant dead end.