Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Mark

by com.use-mark.app
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Competitor AI Detail

get_competitor_ai_detail
Read-onlyIdempotent

One tracked competitor against you in this week's AI answers, by engine (ChatGPT, Gemini, AI Overview, AI Mode, Claude, Perplexity; Claude and Perplexity are asked through their APIs with web search on, not the consumer apps): how often each is named and cited, the buyer questions where an AI named them and no AI named you (with the stored answers), and the sites AI cited for them in answers that cite none of your sites. Related: get_competitor_scorecard.

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": {
      "competitorId": "<competitorId>"
    },
    "name": "get_competitor_ai_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
competitorIdYesCompetitor id from list_competitors.
languageCodeNoLanguage code. Defaults to the priority market.
locationCodeNoDataForSEO location. Defaults to the priority market.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailYesEach stored answer's answerText is the engine's answer as markdown, its tables, headings and lists kept; citation chips, images and [n] footnote markers are left out, as they are for matching.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / detail / description
      Added value: +"Each stored answer's answerText is the engine's answer as markdown, its tables, headings and lists kept; citation chips, images and [n] footnote markers are left out, as they are for matching."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: which engines are covered, that Claude and Perplexity are queried via API with web search rather than through the consumer apps, and that gap questions come back with the stored answers attached. That is exactly the kind of provenance detail an agent needs to interpret results correctly. It does not cover freshness/caching or cost, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

It leads with the resource and scope, and every clause carries information about what comes back. The long parenthetical about Claude/Perplexity APIs makes the single sentence heavy and slightly hard to parse, but the content is not padding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only detail tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: engine coverage, the time window, and the shape of the gap/citation findings. What remains unstated — refresh cadence, whether data is cached, cost — is minor relative to a declared output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so competitorId, languageCode, and locationCode are already documented with their defaults in the schema. The description adds nothing about these parameters — notably it never mentions that language and location default to the priority market. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 the exact resource and scope: one tracked competitor compared against you in this week's AI answers, broken out by engine and by named/cited frequency. It also enumerates the concrete payload sections (gap questions with stored answers, sites cited for them). It is a noun phrase rather than a verb, and the differentiator from get_competitor_scorecard is only a soft 'Related:' pointer, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope phrase 'this week's AI answers' and by the trailing 'Related: get_competitor_scorecard', which hints at a sibling but never says which one to pick or when. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool should not be used.

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

All Mark 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