Skip to main content
Glama

website-search

by com.zeltser

product_review_plan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Lenny Zeltser's expert criteria for reviewing an existing product strategy plan. Returns focused guidance for constructive critique—what to check in each section, strategic coherence issues, and how to frame feedback collaboratively. Includes rating-sheet items (the lens taxonomy: structure, words, tone) as concrete reference points for grounded feedback on the plan's writing. This server never requests your plan and instructs your AI to keep it local. Use market_segment: "smb" to include SMB-specific review criteria. Use product_focus: "endpoint" to include endpoint viability assessment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
focusNoWhat aspects to focus on. 'completeness': is everything covered? 'strategy': are decisions coherent? 'feasibility': can this team execute?
sectionsNoSpecific sections to get review criteria for. Omit or use 'all' for complete review criteria.
review_typeNo'internal': reviewing your own plan (default). 'external-analysis': reviewing an analysis of another company. Adjusts criteria to focus on evidence tiering, source attribution, and marketing language.
product_focusNoInclude vertical-specific review criteria. 'endpoint': endpoint viability. 'ai_security': AI security market assessment.
market_segmentNoInclude SMB-specific review criteria.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: output contents (section checks, coherence issues, collaborative framing, rating-sheet taxonomy) and a privacy guarantee ('never requests your plan'), which enriches transparency.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers behavioral details and parameter usage. It's slightly verbose with redundant parameter guidance, but each sentence serves a distinct function and the structure is logical.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the nature of the returned guidance, the privacy behavior, and key parameter effects. It doesn't enumerate all output fields but gives enough context for an agent to invoke it appropriately.

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% with descriptive enum values, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It repeats the SMB/endpoint parameter hints but doesn't clarify the focus or sections arrays further; this is adequate given the schema's completeness.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get Lenny Zeltser's expert criteria for reviewing an existing product strategy plan.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like product_get_guidelines or rating_get_sheet by focusing on plan review criteria.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for use (reviewing existing product strategy plans) and explicit parameter usage hints for market_segment and product_focus. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to guide selection among sibling tools.

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