gapup-mcp

competitor_pricing_radar

Read-only

Radar pricing concurrents — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CMO). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Answers: How do my competitors' pricing plans and monthly prices compare to mine? · Which competitor plan undercuts or out-features my equivalent tier? Reference case: Notion — pricing vs ClickUp, Asana, Coda. Inputs are validated server-side — send the documented case fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`async`	No	If true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
`focus`	No
`competitors`	Yes
`selfCompany`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedJun 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / competitors / items

Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "name": {
+      "maxLength": 120,
+      "minLength": 2,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "format": "uri",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "name",
+    "url"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / competitors / maxItems
```
Added value: +10
```
addedInput schema / properties / competitors / minItems
```
Added value: +1
```
addedInput schema / properties / focus / maxLength
```
Added value: +400
```

addedInput schema / properties / selfCompany / properties

Added value: +{
+  "name": {
+    "maxLength": 120,
+    "minLength": 2,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "pitch": {
+    "maxLength": 400,
+    "minLength": 10,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "url": {
+    "format": "uri",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / properties / selfCompany / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "name",
+  "pitch"
+]
```

addedInput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "selfCompany",
+  "competitors"
+]

First observedMay 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) cover basic safety and scope. The description adds that it 'Returns a structured, audited deliverable' and 'Inputs are validated server-side', providing some operational context. No contradiction with annotations. However, it does not disclose rate limits, failure modes, or what 'audited' concretely entails.

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 moderately concise but includes marketing fluff: 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CMO)' adds no operational value. The core questions are front-loaded, but the reference case could be shortened. It is not as lean as it could be, but remains understandable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has nested objects, no output schema, and annotations. The description explains the analytical questions but omits details about the 'async' parameter, the meaning of 'focus', and the deliverable's structure beyond 'structured, audited'. For a complex tool, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand input/output behavior.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 25% (only 'async' has a description). The description's 'send the documented case fields' is vague and does not explain the purpose of 'focus', the structure of 'competitors'/'selfCompany', or when to use 'async'. Parameter names are partially self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool answers 'How do my competitors' pricing plans and monthly prices compare to mine?' and 'Which competitor plan undercuts or out-features my equivalent tier?', making the purpose clear. The opening phrase 'Radar pricing concurrents' is awkward but the subsequent questions compensate. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like competitor_pricing_scrape by focusing on comparative analysis rather than raw scraping.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, or competitor_pricing_scrape. The reference case (Notion vs ClickUp, Asana, Coda) is illustrative but does not provide selection criteria or exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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

All gapup-mcp 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?