Taseli

The business's competitors

list_competitors

Read-onlyIdempotent

The competitors Taseli watches for this business (Meta and Google ads in Israel, checked weekly): each with its live ads, new and stopped this week, its longest-running ad in days, a one-line summary of what it runs and when it was last checked; plus competitors Taseli found and suggests (with why), the plan limit and whether a 'check now' is available.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_competitors"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`language`	No	Answer language. The business's language by default.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	A plain note instead of data (nothing connected yet, not available here).
`error`	No	Why nothing was done, as a short code.
`truncated`	No
`truncatedNote`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: check cadence (weekly), what counts as 'new' vs 'stopped' this week, the longest-running ad in days, inclusion of machine-suggested competitors with rationale, and plan-limit/check-now availability.

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?

It is one long run-on sentence with deeply nested clauses and semicolons, packing tracked competitors, ad metrics, suggestions, and plan limits into a single breath. The core (list of tracked competitors) is front-loaded, but a reader must re-parse to separate tracked competitors from suggested ones.

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?

An output schema exists, so the heavy field enumeration is arguably redundant, but the description still adds the operational facts an agent needs (weekly cadence, plan limit, check-now availability). Given low complexity and one optional parameter, nothing essential is missing apart from sibling routing guidance.

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?

The single 'language' parameter has full schema coverage including an enum and a default ('The business's language'), and the description adds nothing about it. With 100% coverage the schema does the work, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific resource (the competitors Taseli tracks for this business) and enumerates contents — live ads, new/stopped ads this week, longest-running ad, summary, suggested competitors. It is clearly a listing/overview tool rather than a per-competitor detail tool like get_competitor_ads, though it never names that sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_competitor_ads, refresh_competitors, or add_competitor. The mention that the response includes 'whether a "check now" is available' hints at refresh_competitors but never says so, leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling names alone.

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

All Taseli 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?