Klarix Intelligence Engine

Competitor battlecard (SWOT + landmines + talk tracks)

get_competitor_battlecard

Read-only

Build a live sales battlecard for a competitor domain: SWOT from their point of view, the gap between their marketing claims and buyer-reported reality, and concrete landmines with spoken talk tracks. Every claim cites a public source. Optionally aim it at a target vertical, and curate it to your own business by passing our_company_name, our_domain, our_differentiators, or a Klarix client_id — landmines and talk tracks then become lines your seller can actually defend.

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_vertical`	No	Vertical the battlecard should be aimed at, e.g. "staffing agencies". Sharpens the talk tracks.
`our_company_name`	No	Your company name. Curates the analysis toward how YOU win instead of a generic read.
`competitor_domain`	Yes	Competitor web domain, e.g. "zoominfo.com"
`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
`swot`	Yes
`sources`	Yes
`category`	Yes
`landmines`	Yes
`our_context`	No
`relationship`	Yes
`target_buyer`	Yes
`trap_questions`	Yes
`where_they_win`	Yes
`competitor_name`	Yes
`pricing_posture`	Yes
`target_vertical`	Yes
`where_they_lose`	Yes
`competitor_domain`	Yes
`confidence_detail`	No
`positioning_flaws`	Yes
`evidence_confidence`	Yes
`one_line_positioning`	Yes
`relationship_rationale`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 4, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / relationship
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / relationship_rationale
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "competitor_name",
-  "competitor_domain",
-  "target_vertical",
-  "one_line_positioning",
-  "category",
-  "pricing_posture",
-  "target_buyer",
-  "swot",
-  "positioning_flaws",
-  "landmines",
-  "where_they_win",
-  "where_they_lose",
-  "trap_questions",
-  "evidence_confidence",
-  "sources"
-]New value: +[
+  "competitor_name",
+  "competitor_domain",
+  "target_vertical",
+  "one_line_positioning",
+  "category",
+  "pricing_posture",
+  "target_buyer",
+  "swot",
+  "positioning_flaws",
+  "landmines",
+  "where_they_win",
+  "where_they_lose",
+  "trap_questions",
+  "evidence_confidence",
+  "relationship",
+  "relationship_rationale",
+  "sources"
+]

First observedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing methodology: SWOT is 'from their point of view', the battlecard uses 'buyer-reported reality', and 'every claim cites a public source.' It also exposes override semantics through the client_id schema description ('Explicit arguments always override it') and the live/non-idempotent nature via 'live' and openWorldHint. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences carry the full scope: output contents, sourcing guarantee, optional customizations, and selling outcome. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every clause adds information without redundancy or 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 tool with six parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what the tool produces, how it sources claims, optional targeting, and how to customize for a company. It also clarifies the client_id fallback behavior. Nothing critical for an agent to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so each parameter is already documented in detail. The main description adds useful grouping—optional params 'curate it to your own business'—but does not provide significant new per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Build a live sales battlecard for a competitor domain') and enumerates the concrete outputs: SWOT from competitor POV, marketing-vs-reality gap, landmines, and talk tracks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_swot_analysis or analyze_head_to_head by emphasizing the battlecard and talk-track angle.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool ('battlecard', 'talk tracks your seller can actually defend') and explains optional customization, but it never explicitly contrasts it with sibling tools such as generate_swot_analysis, analyze_head_to_head, or generate_displacement_playbook. An agent has to infer the boundary from the battlecard framing rather than being given direct selection guidance.

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?