Klarix Intelligence Engine

Displacement playbook (lock-ins, migration, POC clock, aircover)

generate_displacement_playbook

Read-only

Generate an end-to-end competitive displacement playbook with switching cost mitigations, POC blueprints, and migration timelines.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`client_id`	No	Klarix client id (kebab-case, e.g. "alium-batteries"). Loads company name, domain, value propositions, win themes, and ICP from clients/{client_id}/context.json when that file is reachable. Explicit arguments always override it.
`our_domain`	No	Your own web domain, e.g. "klarix.ai". Lets the tool research your side of the comparison.
`target_domain`	Yes	The incumbent vendor you are displacing, e.g. "zoominfo.com".
`account_domain`	No	The account where the displacement happens, e.g. "acme.com". Supplying it grounds the plan in their environment instead of generic switching advice.
`target_vertical`	No	The market this displacement is aimed at, e.g. "medical device OEMs". Sharpens migration risk and executive framing.
`our_company_name`	No	Your company name. Curates the analysis toward how YOU win instead of a generic read.
`our_differentiators`	No	What you actually win on, in your words, e.g. ["3-7 day delivery", "done-for-you, not DIY"]. Anchors talk tracks to claims you can defend.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sources`	Yes
`unknowns`	Yes
`our_context`	No
`target_domain`	Yes
`account_domain`	No
`incumbent_name`	Yes
`target_vertical`	Yes
`confidence_detail`	No
`executive_aircover`	Yes
`incumbent_lock_ins`	Yes
`data_migration_plan`	Yes
`displacement_thesis`	Yes
`evidence_confidence`	Yes
`poc_acceleration_framework`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the output components but does not disclose process traits such as external research behavior or variability on repeated calls. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single front-loaded sentence: it opens with the verb and deliverable, then lists the concrete sub-components. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has an output schema, fully described parameters, and safety-relevant annotations, so the description need not explain return values or parameter mechanics. The main gap is the missing usage-versus-sibling guidance, but overall the definition is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a detailed explanation with examples and override semantics. The description itself adds no parameter details, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 states a specific action ('Generate') and a specific deliverable ('end-to-end competitive displacement playbook') with concrete components: switching cost mitigations, POC blueprints, and migration timelines. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like generate_swot_analysis or analyze_head_to_head, even without naming them.

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?

No sentence explains when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_swot_analysis, analyze_head_to_head, or get_competitor_battlecard. There are no conditions, exclusions, or recommendations, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

All Klarix Intelligence Engine tools Inspect

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

Need Help?