Skip to main content
Glama

Mark

by com.use-mark.app
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Competitor Scorecard

get_competitor_scorecard
Read-onlyIdempotent

Your sites and each tracked competitor side by side for one market: how often this week's AI answers to your buyer questions name and cite each brand (count of answers), organic traffic and keywords, and monthly share of ChatGPT and AI Overview mentions. These cover your own buyer questions, not the whole market. Null means no answers or no data yet. nextComparisonPage is the comparison page to draft next ({ competitorId, name, kind, namedNotYou }, the Competitors page's card), or null when nothing is left: for this market, the tracked competitor (not one a content exclusion names) AI answers name most often instead of you, then the one ranking for the most keywords, kinds in vs, alternative, pricing order, pricing only once a price claim is sourced on their site. Related: get_competitor_ai_detail, list_competitors, draft_competitor_page.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
languageCodeNoLanguage code. Defaults to the priority market.
locationCodeNoDataForSEO location. Defaults to the priority market.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appUrlYes
scorecardYes
nextComparisonPageYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / nextComparisonPage
      Added value: +{}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "appUrl",
-  "scorecard"
-]New value: +[
+  "appUrl",
+  "nextComparisonPage",
+  "scorecard"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds real behavioral context on top: null means 'no answers or no data yet', the nextComparisonPage payload shape, its ordering logic (named-not-you first, then most keywords ranked, kind ordering within vs/alternative/pricing, pricing gated on a sourced price claim), and the content-exclusion caveat. It does not discuss caching or latency, but that is minor here.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose sentence is well front-loaded, but the nextComparisonPage sentence is a single dense clause stacking ordering rules, kinds, and a pricing caveat that is hard to parse in one pass. The content largely earns its place, but the structure could be broken into shorter, list-like statements.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return formats, yet it still clarifies the null semantics and nextComparisonPage semantics that an agent must interpret. Annotations, schema, and description together leave no obvious gap for correctly invoking this filtered read.

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?

Both parameters (languageCode, locationCode) are fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including their priority-market defaults, so the schema carries the load. The description mentions 'one market' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a concrete verb (get/compare) and resource (your sites vs each tracked competitor for one market) and enumerates exactly what the scorecard reports: AI answer naming/citation counts, organic traffic and keywords, and monthly ChatGPT/AI Overview mention share. It also draws the boundary against related tools (get_competitor_ai_detail, list_competitors), so an agent can distinguish this market-level scorecard from the per-competitor detail tool.

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?

A 'Related:' line names get_competitor_ai_detail, list_competitors, and draft_competitor_page, and the scope note ('these cover your own buyer questions, not the whole market') implies when this view is appropriate. However, no explicit condition selects this tool over the alternatives, so the routing is left to inference.

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