Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Mondovo

by com.mondovo.app
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Plan competitor alternative pages

plan_alternative_pages
Read-onlyIdempotent

Which " alternative" pages are worth building. For the competitors you name (or, without competitors, the ones known for the site), measures monthly Google searches for " alternative", " alternatives" and "alternative to ", and recommends a page only where people search. Local businesses' competitors rarely have such searches; software and product brands often do. Reports pages that already exist. Changes nothing — build the recommended ones with generate_alternative_pages.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_idYesThe site, from list_sites
user_goalNoOptional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. "add a page so customers can book tables"). No names, emails or other personal details.
competitorsNoCompetitor names. Omit to use the site's known competitors.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_goal
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. \"add a page so customers can book tables\"). No names, emails or other personal details.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with "Changes nothing." It also discloses the actual measurement behavior (monthly Google searches for three specific query variants) and that already-existing pages are reported, which annotations cannot convey. The remaining gap is the exact response shape — no output schema exists, and it doesn't say what a recommendation entry contains (e.g., volume per phrase).

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 decision the tool answers, then the measurement logic, then the applicability caveat, then the next action. Dense but every sentence carries information an agent needs to decide whether to call it.

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 read-only, three-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers what is measured, what is returned at a high level (recommended pages plus existing pages), when results will be useless, and what to do next. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so site_id, user_goal and competitors are already documented in the schema. The description only re-explains the `competitors` omission behavior, which the schema already states verbatim; it adds the domain reasoning for choosing competitors but no new syntax or format detail. 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 resource and decision: which "<competitor> alternative" pages are worth building, backed by measured search volume for three query patterns. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling that acts on the result (generate_alternative_pages), so an agent can separate planning from building.

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 when-to-use context (`competitors` omitted vs. supplied), a domain caveat that determines whether the tool is even appropriate (local businesses rarely have such searches; software/product brands often do), and names the follow-up tool generate_alternative_pages for acting on recommendations.

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

All Mondovo 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