The competitor roster with the measured stat battery for you and each rival (performance, SEO, Core Web Vitals, authority, G2 and Product Hunt presence, content freshness), plus the founder's own edits. Read before any competitor or outreach work so a rival is never treated as a pitch target. Read-only, free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content details and the 'free' aspect, but no additional behavioral traits like auth requirements or rate limits. Given the annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is composed of three sentences. The first lists the content with useful specifics, the second gives usage guidance, and the third repeats the read-only nature already covered by annotations. It is mostly concise and front-loaded, but the third sentence is slightly redundant, preventing a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description fully conveys what the tool returns (the stat battery components) and when to use it. It is complete for a simple read-only tool, covering content, usage, and safety implicitly through annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the return content rather than parameter details, adding value through the stat battery enumeration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies what the tool returns: a competitor roster with measured stat batteries for the user and each rival, listing specific categories. It also states it includes the founder's own edits. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_seo or get_scoreboard, which focus on different domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Read before any competitor or outreach work so a rival is never treated as a pitch target.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions are thorough. A few pairs (e.g., ship_move vs set_output_status, dismiss_gap vs skip_move) overlap on the dismissal concept but operate on different surfaces, so an agent can usually tell them apart with careful reading.
All tool names follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_move, create_checkout, untrack_prompt). Retrieval tools consistently use get_ for single items and list_ for collections, and action verbs are precise, so the naming is fully predictable.
42 tools is heavy by any standard, exceeding the 25+ threshold in the calibration. While each tool may earn its place given the breadth of the domain, the sheer number will overwhelm an agent and complicate tool selection.
The tool set covers the main lifecycles well: moves (list/get/ship/skip/archive/undo/update), outputs (list/get/ship/redraft), connections (list/start/poll/disconnect), prompts (track/untrack/list), and scans (refresh/get/set intensity). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct edit for KB pages, but record_insight partially fills that.