get_competitor_moves_feedWhat your rivals changed, newest first: technology and providers, shipping, ads, marketing messages, AI citations, agent readiness, hiring, performance, bestsellers and more (RivalSweeper's Domain Moves feed). Default last 7 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| domains | No | Brand domains from your RivalSweeper account, e.g. ["gymshark.com"]. Omit for all your tracked brands. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful ordering ('newest first') and the default window ('last 7 days') plus the source feed name. It says nothing about pagination, result volume, or cost, so it is a modest but not rich addition.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then the categories, the source, and the default window. The long enumeration of categories is slightly list-heavy but still earns its place by conveying feed breadth.
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?
Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema, so return values needn't be explained. However, the description leaves the 'limit' parameter's effect and any pagination/volume behavior unaddressed, which for a feed tool with only 33% schema coverage is a real gap.
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 description coverage is 33%: only 'domains' is described in the schema, while 'days' and 'limit' carry no description. The description compensates for 'days' by stating the 7-day default, but 'limit' is left completely unexplained in both places, so it fails to fully compensate for the low coverage.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('what your rivals changed... newest first') and enumerates the signal categories covered, so an agent understands it is a broad change feed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very close siblings 'get_significant_competitor_changes' and 'get_predicted_competitor_moves', leaving overlap unresolved.
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 when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. With siblings like 'get_predicted_competitor_moves' and 'get_significant_competitor_changes' clearly competing for the same intent, the description should route the agent but does not. Only an implicit signal ('Default last 7 days') hints at usage.
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.