get_reportFetch the full body of a published report by slug. Returns the report's structured fields plus content_html (the canonical body). For a PDF, use pdf_url when present, or append .pdf to the URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Report slug from list_reports (e.g. '/devops-hiring-q1-2026' or 'devops-hiring-q1-2026'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description reveals return structure (structured fields + content_html) and PDF handling. Lacks disclosure of auth requirements or error conditions, but as a read operation the given details are sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two focused sentences: first states core purpose, second covers PDF export. No redundant information, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and single parameter, description adequately explains input source, return fields, and PDF alternative. Could mention error cases or rate limits but not essential for a simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already describes slug with minLength=1 and a basic description. Description adds value by specifying the source (list_reports) and example formats, enriching understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description starts with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full body of a published report by slug'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like list_reports which likely only list metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides guidance on when to use pdf_url or append .pdf for PDF output, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings for non-PDF retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of competitive intelligence—competitor discovery, detailed comparisons, market landscapes, pricing changes, strategic moves, and reports—with no functional overlap. The descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., find_competitors, get_comparison, list_markets), with verbs like 'find', 'get', 'list', and 'subscribe' appropriately chosen. No mixing of conventions.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a competitive intelligence domain. Each tool serves a clear function, and the count is neither too small nor overwhelming for an agent to navigate.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: discovering competitors, obtaining profiles, comparing them, viewing market landscapes, tracking pricing and strategic moves, and accessing reports. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.