Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Refora

by ai.refora
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Competitor comparison

get_competitor_comparison
Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank the workspace's own brand against the competitors the user tracks, by visibility: the share of AI answers that mention each brand.

Use this tool when the user asks about competitive position -- phrases like 'how do we compare', 'who's winning', 'where do we rank', or 'vs competitors'. Do NOT use for the own score alone (use get_visibility_score), trends (use get_visibility_trend), or every brand the AI mentions, tracked or not (use get_share_of_voice).

Returns: tracked brands ranked by visibility, the own brand among them. Brands with nothing to measure get no rank. To see WHY a competitor leads, follow up with get_competitor_visibility_gap.

Example: 'How does Kassaro compare to its competitors?'

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_competitor_comparison"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoHow many days back to look, counted back from end_date (default today). Default 30, max 90. Ignored when start_date is given. Prompts are re-run on a schedule, so a window shorter than a week can be empty.
end_dateNoOptional end of the window, as an ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD). Default today. Cannot be in the future.
start_dateNoOptional explicit start of the window, as an ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD). A full ISO datetime is accepted and its date is used. Overrides days.
workspace_idYesThe workspace's numeric id, as returned by list_workspaces.
competitor_limitNoHow many competitors to list. Default 5, max 20.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: what is ranked, that untracked brands are excluded, that unmeasurable brands receive no rank, and that get_competitor_visibility_gap explains causes. It does not cover pagination or ordering ties, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then when-to-use, then do-not-use alternatives, then returns and an example. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return shape (tracked brands ranked by visibility with the own brand among them) and the empty-data edge case. For a read-only ranking tool with fully documented parameters, nothing an agent needs to call 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%, with days, dates, competitor_limit, and workspace_id all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as default window interaction or competitor_limit behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rank the workspace's own brand against the competitors the user tracks') and defines the ranking metric as the share of AI answers mentioning each brand. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_visibility_score and get_share_of_voice.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ('how do we compare', 'who's winning', 'where do we rank', 'vs competitors') and explicit exclusions naming the correct alternative tool for each case (own score, trends, all brands). Nothing is left to inference.

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

All Refora 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