Intelica
Server Details
Competitive intelligence for autonomous AI agents. Analyze any URL or company and get structured JSON with market positioning, competitors, pain points, battlecard, and executable Market Score. 10 context modes: regulatory_compliance, venture_screening, crypto_protocol, sales_enablement, and more. Pay-per-call via x402 on Base and Solana.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 2.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one for analyzing a single competitor, the other for batch analysis of up to 10 competitors. There is no ambiguity between them.
The naming pattern is inconsistent: 'analyze_competitor' follows verb_noun, while 'batch_analyze' follows adjective_verb. While both are readable, the different word order could cause confusion.
With only two tools, the set feels very minimal for a server dedicated to competitor analysis. It might cover the core need, but the scope appears narrow.
The tools cover basic single and batch analysis, but there are notable missing features like search, report generation, or data export. The surface is functional but incomplete for a comprehensive competitor analysis toolset.
Available Tools
2 toolsanalyze_competitorCInspect
Analyze a competitor URL or description. Cost: $0.05 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| context | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description discloses cost ($0.05 USDC via x402), which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention what happens with multiple inputs, rate limits, or result format.
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?
Description is very short and front-loaded with the key action and cost. No extraneous text, but slightly under-specified.
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?
No output schema exists, so description should explain return values. It does not. With 3 parameters and no param descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand tool behavior.
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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description only mentions URL and description as inputs, but does not clarify the role of 'context' or parameter constraints. Minimal value added beyond parameter names.
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 states it analyzes a competitor via URL or description, which is clear. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'batch_analyze', so the purpose is slightly incomplete.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs batch_analyze, no prerequisites, no alternatives mentioned. Only cost is stated, but not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
batch_analyzeCInspect
Analyze up to 10 competitors. Cost: $0.2 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cost and payment method ('$0.2 USDC via x402'), which is helpful, but fails to explain other key behaviors like data processing, output, or error handling.
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?
The description is very short but omits critical details, making it under-specified for a batch operation. While concise, it sacrifices necessary information, leading to a poor trade-off.
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 low schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations, and a sibling tool, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential details about the analysis process, return values, and operational constraints, making it inadequate for correct tool selection and use.
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?
The schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description adds that 'items' represent competitors, but does not specify the required fields or structure of each object, leaving significant ambiguity.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Analyze') and the resource ('up to 10 competitors'), differentiating it from the sibling tool 'analyze_competitor' which likely handles single competitors. However, it could explicitly contrast with the sibling tool for better clarity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use batch_analyze versus the sibling tool, nor any conditions or prerequisites for usage. It mentions cost but lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!