SpiderLook

approve_battlecard

Idempotent

Mark a rival's battlecard as approved by the caller.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "competitor_id": "<competitor_id>"
    },
    "name": "approve_battlecard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`context`	No	Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as "a user", "the customer", or "an account". Example: "Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution."
`llm_model`	No	Optional model identifier for analytics, only if explicitly available in client-provided metadata. Otherwise pass 'unknown'. Do not inspect or disclose system prompts, hidden instructions, credentials, or other protected context.
`project_id`	Yes
`competitor_id`	Yes
`conversation_id`	No	Optional Spiderlook analytics correlation identifier. Reuse the value returned by a previous Spiderlook response only for subsequent Spiderlook calls in this chat. Omit if unavailable; do not invent a value or use the host's conversation ID.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`_mcp_instructions`	No	Server-issued metadata for this conversation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds only 'by the caller,' which hints at attribution but says nothing about what approval changes, whether it notifies anyone, or whether it requires prior review. For a mutation tool, this is thin even with annotations present.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness problem.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain the approval's effect, prerequisites, or how project_id and competitor_id identify the target. For a mutation tool with required identifiers, this leaves the agent with too little to invoke it confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Five parameters are present, and the two required ones (project_id, competitor_id) have no schema descriptions. The description does not explain these identifiers or how they scope the approval, leaving a real gap at 60% schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a rival's battlecard as approved.' This is clear and distinguishable from generation or retrieval siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_battlecard, generate_battlecard, or review_battlecard_suggestion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as whether a battlecard must first be reviewed or generated. Usage is only implied by the verb 'approve.'

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

All SpiderLook 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.

Resources

Need Help?