Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DevTune MCP

by ai.devtune
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

devtune_get_competitive_position

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get competitive positioning data showing primary, competitor, and other citations. The default aggregates only currently active project platforms. shareOfVoice compares primary with competitor citations; primaryShareOfAllCitations also includes other citations. The shares are percents, null when their citations total 0, each with a sibling Range holding a 90% range as low and high in percent, successes and n counted in citations, and directional true when there are too few citations to rely on. totals cover every platform in the window; timeSeries leaves out platforms checked less often than daily (platformCadences with inDailySeries false, such as weekly Claude or Grok) unless they are the only platforms requested, in which case it has one point per run. platformCadences is null when cadence could not be read.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "devtune_get_competitive_position"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicIdNoFilter by topic UUID.
groupingNoTime grouping. Defaults to daily.
platformNoFilter by AI platform.
windowDaysNoRolling window in days: 30 or 90. Defaults to 30.
includeHistoricalPlatformsNoInclude a requested inactive platform’s historical data. Defaults to false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / platform / maxLength
      Added value: +100
    • addedInput schema / properties / platform / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / topicId / format
      Added value: +"uuid"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses aggregation scope, null semantics, confidence-range sibling fields, and the timeSeries platform-cadence exclusion rule. The remaining gap is that the dense phrasing ("successes and n counted in citations") is hard to parse and edges toward spec-dump rather than explanation.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then walks through return-value semantics in one dense block with essentially no filler. Some sentences are overloaded with parenthetical clauses, hurting scannability, but every statement carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of explaining return-shape semantics (shareOfVoice vs primaryShareOfAllCitations, range siblings, timeSeries exclusions) and does so thoroughly. What's missing is disambiguation from the nearby positioning/citation tools and any note on permissions or data freshness.

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 baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it clarifies what the aggregation window covers ("totals cover every platform in the window") and that includeHistoricalPlatforms pulls in inactive platforms. It does not clarify the interaction between platform and topicId filters, which would have earned a 5.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Get competitive positioning data showing primary, competitor, and other citations." The scope (three citation categories) is concrete. However, it never distinguishes itself from similarly named siblings such as devtune_get_positioning or devtune_get_citation_analysis, so an agent cannot route between them from the description alone.

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?

Usage is implied through behavior: the "default aggregates only currently active project platforms" and includeHistoricalPlatforms flips that. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative, which matters given the crowded positioning/citation sibling set.

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

All DevTune MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources