Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SpiderLook

by com.spiderlook.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_battlecard

Read-onlyIdempotent

The team's sales battlecard for one rival.

Returns content (null until one is generated), pending suggestions with their ids and evidence, approval state, and whether generation is running.

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": "get_battlecard"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNoExplain 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_modelNoOptional 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_idYes
competitor_idYes
conversation_idNoOptional 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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_mcp_instructionsNoServer-issued metadata for this conversation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail — empty content before generation, pending suggestion ids/evidence, approval state, and a generation-in-progress flag — though much of this overlaps with the existing output schema. No mention of permissions or scoping caveats.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the return shape. No wasted prose; the only fault is that brevity comes at the cost of usage guidance.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema and full annotations, the description need not re-explain returns, and it does cover purpose adequately. However, for a tool with a crowded sibling set and five parameters, the absence of any disambiguation or parameter guidance leaves an agent under-informed.

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?

Schema coverage is only 60%, and the description never explains project_id or competitor_id beyond the vague 'one rival', nor the analytics-only context/llm_model/conversation_id params. It does not compensate for the coverage gap the way a low-coverage tool requires.

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?

Names a specific resource ('sales battlecard') scoped to one rival, with the 'get' verb coming from the tool name. An agent can tell this reads a battlecard, but the description never distinguishes it from nearby siblings like generate_battlecard, approve_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 Guidelines3/5

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

The parenthetical 'null until one is generated' hints that this is a read that may precede or follow generation, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to siblings. The agent must infer that generation/approval flows live in other tools.

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

All SpiderLook 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