Mark

Track Competitor

track_competitor

Idempotent

Starts tracking a competitor's domain, so it shows on the competitor scorecard and in AI answer matches. Tracking the same domain again reuses it and keeps its stored name: name applies only when a domain is first tracked, so rename with rename_competitor. Refuses your own sites, and more than 50 tracked competitors. Related: list_competitors, rename_competitor, untrack_competitor.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "track_competitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	How AI answers name them, used only when the domain is first tracked. Defaults to the domain's name, title-cased.
`domain`	Yes	The competitor's domain, like example.com.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`competitor`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 23, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / name / description

Previous value: -"How AI answers name them. Defaults to the domain's name, title-cased."New value: +"How AI answers name them, used only when the domain is first tracked. Defaults to the domain's name, title-cased."

AddedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and the description corroborates the idempotency with the reuse semantics and explains the 50-competitor cap and self-site refusal. It does not mention whether tracking triggers analysis/cost or what errors look like, which is the remaining gap for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences: what it does, how duplicates behave, and what it refuses, followed by a related-tools line. Every clause carries information an agent needs, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema, full annotation coverage, and 100% parameter documentation, the description only needs to supply behavior and limits, and it does both. Nothing required to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the name-only-on-first-track rule. The description reinforces the name semantics but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema already says, so 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?

"Starts tracking a competitor's domain" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the description immediately states the effect (appears on the competitor scorecard and in AI answer matches). It is clearly distinct from list/rename/untrack siblings, which are named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It tells the agent exactly what happens on a repeat call (reuse, name ignored) and routes renames to rename_competitor, so an agent won't misuse this tool to rename. Hard preconditions are stated too: it refuses your own sites and more than 50 tracked competitors.

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

All Mark 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?