LeanrIQ

Read saved canonical LeanrIQ Competitor Intelligence V2 for an advertiser-scoped competitor. This does not reacquire evidence or generate new recommendations.

get_competitor_intelligence

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read saved canonical LeanrIQ Competitor Intelligence V2 for an advertiser-scoped competitor. This does not reacquire evidence or generate new recommendations.. Classification: read-only. Execution: synchronous. Task support: forbidden. The returned JSON is internal application state for LeanrIQ and ChatGPT orchestration. Use assistantSummary first when responding to the user. Never display raw JSON, data, or meta unless the user explicitly asks for raw JSON. Mention IDs only when useful for follow-up or debugging. Prefer concise, human language, highlight the most useful insight, and suggest the next best LeanrIQ action.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`seatId`	No
`website`	No
`seatName`	No
`advertiserId`	No
`competitorId`	No
`competitorName`	No
`includeEvidence`	No
`competitorDomain`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`meta`	Yes
`error`	No
`status`	Yes
`assistantSummary`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

Changed12 schema fields changedAug 13, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / adFormat

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "DISPLAY_IMAGE",
-  "enum": [
-    "DISPLAY_IMAGE",
-    "IMAGE",
-    "DISPLAY"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / advertiserId

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 240,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / brandName

Removed value: -{
-  "maxLength": 120,
-  "minLength": 1,
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / competitorDomain

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 300,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / competitorId

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 240,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / competitorName

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 180,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / includeEvidence

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / limit

Removed value: -{
-  "default": 120,
-  "maximum": 120,
-  "minimum": 1,
-  "type": "integer"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / region

Removed value: -{
-  "maxLength": 16,
-  "minLength": 2,
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / vertical

Removed value: -{
-  "maxLength": 160,
-  "minLength": 1,
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / properties / website / maxLength
```
Previous value: -255New value: +300
```

removedInput schema / required

Removed value: -[
-  "brandName",
-  "website"
-]

First observedAug 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description adds 'Execution: synchronous', 'Task support: forbidden', and detailed instructions on handling returned JSON (never display raw JSON, use assistantSummary, suggest next action). These are meaningful behavioral disclosures not present in structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains useful behavioral guidance in a structured format. It has minor redundancy (first sentence repeats the title) and a double period, but it remains concise and informative for its length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists, covering return values, and the description covers key behavioral constraints and usage context. However, it does not explain parameter semantics or explicitly differentiate from related tools like leanriq_get_competitor_creative_intelligence, leaving some gaps for an 8-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., seatId, competitorId, includeEvidence). The only hint is 'advertiser-scoped competitor' in the title, which does not define parameter meaning. This is a significant gap for a tool with many parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'saved canonical LeanrIQ Competitor Intelligence V2 for an advertiser-scoped competitor.' It explicitly notes what it does not do ('does not reacquire evidence or generate new recommendations'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_competitor_intelligence.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for reading saved intelligence) and explicitly excludes reacquisition or new recommendations, implying it is not for fresh generation. However, it does not name specific alternative tools, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use references.

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

All LeanrIQ tools Inspect

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

C2.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

The tool set is dominated by deprecated aliases (leanriq_build_ad, leanriq_create_brief, etc.) that duplicate canonical tools exactly, and multiple high-level builders (build_ad, build_campaign_creative_set, leanriq_campaign_builder, launch_creative_campaign) overlap in purpose. An agent would struggle to pick the intended tool without inspecting full descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Canonical tools follow a sensible verb_noun pattern (create_campaign, get_creative, list_flights), but the large number of 'leanriq_' prefixed aliases and special names like leanriq_campaign_builder create a mixed, inconsistent surface. The presence of both build_ad and leanriq_build_ad, or get_current_seat and leanriq_current_seat, breaks any predictable convention.

Tool Count1/5

87 tools is an extreme number for any MCP server, even a broad ad-platform API. The sheer volume, including many duplicate aliases, far exceeds a well-scoped set and will overwhelm agents with unnecessary choices.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is well covered: CRUD for advertisers, campaigns, flights, creatives, versions, assets, plus trafficking, QA, preview, and publishing. Minor gaps exist, such as the missing canonical create_creative_strategy (only a deprecated alias references it) and no direct update_creative, but the domain is functionally complete.

Resources

Need Help?