CrunchJunkie

get_content_gaps

Read-only

Prompts where the tracked brand is absent from every recent AI answer while competitors are named, the gap definition the in-app Content Brief generator uses, so each gap can become an evidence-grounded brief in CrunchJunkie. Returns the competitors named and the domains the engines cited instead. The gap rule arrives in howToRead.

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": "get_content_gaps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	Window in days (default 30, max 180).
`limit`	No	Gaps returned, most-measured first (default 8, max 50). gapCount covers every gap.
`minRuns`	No	Minimum runs a prompt needs to count as measured (default 3).
`clientId`	No	Client id — uses the AI-Visibility project its Overview opens in the app (the newest).
`projectId`	No	AI-Visibility project id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Gaps returned, most-measured first (default 8, max 50). gapCount covers every gap.",
+  "maximum": 50,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the burden is lighter, and the description still adds real context: it discloses that each gap returns the competitors named and the domains cited instead, and that the gap rule itself is delivered in a `howToRead` field. That is useful behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 core definition is front-loaded, which is right, but it is delivered as a long appositive-laden noun fragment ('Proimpts where ... , the gap definition ... , so each gap can become ...') that is harder to parse than it needs to be. The two following sentences are tight and earn their place.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema and a non-obvious return payload, the description does the needed work: it states what a gap is and names the returned fields (competitors, cited domains, howToRead rule). It stops short of describing the prompt identifiers or run counts the caller would receive, which is the main residual gap.

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%, so days, limit, minRuns, clientId and projectId are already fully documented in structured fields. The description adds nothing to those semantics beyond the loose notion of 'recent', so the 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?

Defines a specific, non-obvious resource: prompts where the tracked brand is absent from every recent answer while competitors are named. That definition distinguishes it from generic insight/metrics siblings, though it never names a sibling it should be preferred over (e.g. get_content_brief, get_insights).

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?

Implies a workflow ('so each gap can become an evidence-grounded brief') and ties itself to the in-app Content Brief generator, which hints at when to reach for it. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no statement of prerequisites (clientId vs projectId choice), and no routing against the many other visibility tools.

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

All CrunchJunkie 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?