Mencoro

Discover competitors

discover_competitors

Start a background job that finds up to limit businesses (default 3, at most 5) competing with a website in one market: domains ranking on Google for the same searches, each with the brand name people use and up to 3 aliases. Pass the project's existing competitor domains in existingCompetitorDomains so they are not proposed again. Poll get_job for the result and show it to the user. During project setup, pass the chosen ones in create_project's competitors: a competitor added later with create_competitor only counts in answers captured from then on. An empty list is a valid answer. Country is ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and language ISO 639-1. Requires an active subscription; refused to a member restricted to selected projects.

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": {
      "organizationId": "<organizationId>",
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "country": "<country>",
      "language": "<language>"
    },
    "name": "discover_competitors"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No
`domain`	Yes	The website whose competitors to find, as a host or URL
`country`	Yes
`language`	Yes
`brandName`	No	The brand name of the website, when known
`requestId`	No	Optional idempotency key, 8-255 printable characters. Reuse it only to retry this same call.
`organizationId`	Yes
`existingCompetitorDomains`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`jobId`	Yes	Pass it to get_job. May name a job started by an earlier, equivalent call.
`nextStep`	Yes
`deduplicated`	Yes	Whether this call joined a job that was already running instead of starting one

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description is consistent with an asynchronous job initiation. It adds behavior annotations do not carry: the job runs in the background and must be polled via get_job, requires an active subscription, and is refused to a member restricted to selected projects. That is exactly the precondition context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and tightly packed with distinct, non-redundant information; every sentence carries a different constraint. The one weak spot is the create_project/create_competitor sentence, which is dense and requires careful reading to unpack the timing implication.

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 an 8-parameter asynchronous job with an output schema, the description supplies all the surrounding context an agent needs: prerequisite (active subscription), the retrieval step (get_job), the follow-up path (create_project vs create_competitor), and the empty-result case. Return values are correctly left to the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 38%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the highest-risk parameters: it reveals the effective default of limit (3, at most 5) beyond the schema's null default and maximum, explains why existingCompetitorDomains exists (so domains are not proposed again), and pins country/language to ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and ISO 639-1. brandName and requestId are left to their schema descriptions, and organizationId is undocumented in both places, which keeps it from a 5.

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 precise verb and resource (background job that finds competing businesses for a website in one market) plus the defining criterion: domains ranking on Google for the same searches, with brand name and up to 3 aliases. That definition lets an agent separate it from discover_brands or discover_keywords without opening any schema.

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 workflow guidance: pass existing competitor domains so they are not re-proposed, poll get_job for the result and show it to the user, and during project setup pass the chosen ones via create_project's competitors. It also explains the consequence of the alternative path (a competitor added later with create_competitor only counts in answers captured from then on) and that an empty list is a valid answer.

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

All Mencoro 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.