Skip to main content
Glama

website-search

by com.zeltser

product_get_guidelines

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Lenny Zeltser's expert strategic guidelines for a specific product strategy topic. Topics: market (segmentation), capabilities (AI, agents, MVP, positioning), sales (GTM, channels, distribution, POCs), pricing (models, retention), delivery (deployment, APIs), trust (compliance, security program), platform (ecosystem positioning), team (expertise, gaps), competitive (differentiation, moats), defensibility (AI-era defensibility rubric scoring a product across seven dimensions), smb (SMB market dynamics), endpoint (endpoint viability), ai_security (AI security vertical), role (product manager responsibilities), category_creation (new category strategy), comparative (multi-company analysis), evidence_tiering (evidence classification framework). This server never requests your product plans and instructs your AI to keep them local—guidelines flow to your AI for local analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoSpecific topic to get guidelines for. Omit or use 'all' for a complete overview.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral note beyond the annotations: the server never requests product plans and keeps guidelines local for analysis. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, providing context about privacy and data handling. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 description is functional but lengthy, with a massive list of topics and parenthetical explanations squeezed into a single paragraph. It front-loads the purpose well but lacks structured formatting (e.g., bullets) and contains redundant enumeration that overlaps with the schema's enum.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool returns (guidelines), the available topics, and the privacy behavior. It doesn't specify return format, but that's not critical given the context. The sibling differentiation could be stronger, but the product focus is clear.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already describes the 'topic' parameter with an enum and description (100% coverage). The tool description goes further by explaining what each topic means (e.g., 'defensibility' as an 'AI-era defensibility rubric'), adding semantic value beyond the bare enum values.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving Lenny Zeltser's expert strategic guidelines for product strategy topics. It specifies the exact resource (Lenny Zeltser's guidelines) and differentiates from sibling tools like cti_get_guidelines or ir_get_guidelines by focusing on the product domain.

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 description implies usage for product strategy questions by listing the available topics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., product_get_template or other get_guidelines tools). No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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

All website-search toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct domain prefix (assessment, cti, ir, malware, vuln, product) that makes its purpose clear, and overlapping tools like get_template and get_brief_template are explicitly described as standalone variants. However, the large number of similarly structured tools (get_guidelines, load_context, get_frameworks) across six domains could still cause an agent to reach for the wrong domain's tool without close attention.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent snake_case pattern: domain_get_* (e.g., ir_get_template, cti_get_guidelines), domain_load_context, domain_review_report, and domain_get_cross_server_routes. The few exceptions like product_compare_context and search_zeltser still match the general verb-first or domain-first style, so the overall naming scheme is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 53 tools, the server is far too large for its stated purpose of 'website search.' The vast majority of tools are not about search but rather about writing guidelines, templates, and scoring rubrics for multiple report domains (assessment, CTI, IR, malware, vuln, product) plus an AI defense matrix. The count is inflated by repeating the same set of ~7 tools for six different domains, making it feel bloated and hard to navigate.

Completeness4/5

For the broad coaching/report-writing scope, coverage is thorough: every domain has a template, guidelines, context loader, review criteria, and frameworks, plus generic writing guidance and rating tools. The actual search capability is minimal (search_zeltser, get_article, get_index_info) but adequate for the core task; a notable gap is the lack of a tool to list or browse all articles, which would make discovery easier.

Resources