Grid Radar

Comparador de sustitutos competitivos

radar_compare_substitutes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compara el precio vigente de productos propios de tu organización contra sus sustitutos competitivos configurados en cada tienda. Entrega el índice de precio (PI = propio / referencia), la brecha porcentual y el estado de competitividad (más barato, paridad, más caro). Admite filtrar por SKU propio, marca propia, categoría, tiendas, tipo de precio y base.

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": "radar_compare_substitutes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sku`	No	Filtra por SKU o código del producto propio.
`basis`	No	Base de comparación: TOTAL (precio de góndola, por defecto) o UNIT (precio por unidad base: 100 g, 100 mL, 1 unidad, 1 m).	TOTAL
`brandId`	No	Filtra por identificador de la marca propia (`brandId` de `radar_list_brands`).
`priceType`	No	Tipo de precio a comparar: FINAL (por defecto), LIST o CARD.	FINAL
`retailers`	No	Lista de identificadores de tienda separados por coma (`retailerId` de `radar_list_retailers`).
`categoryId`	No	Filtra por identificador de la categoría (`categoryId` de `radar_search_listings`).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the computed output: the price index formula (PI = propio / referencia), the percentage gap and the competitiveness states (más barato, paridad, más caro) — valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then returned metrics, then filters. No filler or repetition, though the final filter sentence largely restates what the schema already enumerates.

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?

Six optional parameters, fully documented in the schema, annotations covering the safety profile, and the description explains the return values in the absence of an output schema. What remains unstated (pagination, output shape/order, error behavior) is minor for a read-only filtered comparison tool.

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 enums for basis (TOTAL/UNIT) and priceType (FINAL/LIST/CARD), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description only summarizes the filter set (SKU, marca, categoría, tiendas, tipo de precio, base) without adding format, defaults or interaction details beyond it.

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?

States a concrete verb (compara) and object (precio vigente de productos propios vs. sus sustitutos competitivos configurados por tienda), which an agent can act on immediately. It does not explicitly name how it differs from radar_compare_retailer_prices or radar_get_product_prices, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 by the phrasing: use it to benchmark own-product prices against configured competitive substitutes. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use clause nor any mention of the alternative tools (e.g. retailer-to-retailer comparison), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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

All Grid Radar 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?