Skip to main content
Glama

Small Business Intelligence by Brick & Mortar

by io.github.2016judea

Competitor Landscape

competitor_landscape
Read-only

Maps the local competitive set for a category + metro: true competitors vs. adjacent players, a positioning matrix, and saturation signals.

Example invocations:

  • "Map the competitive landscape for coffee shops in Saint Paul, MN"

  • "How saturated is the nail salon market in Aurora, CO?"

  • "Who are the real competitors to a new brewery taproom opening in the North Loop, Minneapolis?"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryYesThe business category/vertical, e.g. 'nail salon', 'brewery taproom'.
city_metroYesCity + state/region defining the trade area, e.g. 'Denver, CO'.
radius_noteNoOptional — a specific radius or neighborhood if the default trade-area logic in the procedure shouldn't apply.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolYes
noticeNoPresent ONLY when the request was denied by usage policy instead of executed. When present, every other field is an empty placeholder and must not be reported as a framework.
caveatsYes
subjectNo
frameworkYes
output_schemaYes
quality_rubricYes
research_procedureYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains the tool separates true competitors from adjacent players and produces a positioning matrix plus saturation signals. No contradiction exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is tight and front-loaded: one substantive sentence defines the tool, followed by three representative invocations. Every part serves a purpose, and there is no wasteful repetition of annotation or schema information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only mapping tool, the description covers the required category and metro inputs, shows optional radius-style queries, and an output schema exists to describe returns. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the category + metro framing and hints at radius/neighborhood handling through examples, but it does not add essential semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Maps the local competitive set for a category + metro.' It then enumerates concrete outputs — true vs. adjacent competitors, a positioning matrix, and saturation signals — making it easy to distinguish from siblings like market_opportunity_scan or pricing_benchmark.

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 examples provide clear usage context by showing real questions this tool answers, such as mapping competitive landscapes or measuring saturation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All Small Business Intelligence by Brick & Mortar 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct tasks — teardowns, competitor mapping, pricing, reviews, visibility, and data lookup are all separable. The main ambiguity is that business_teardown is a comprehensive single-business tool that overlaps with local_visibility_audit, review_intelligence, and pricing_benchmark, and twin_cities_datasets vs twin_cities_records could be confused at first glance.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are almost uniformly descriptive snake_case noun phrases like business_teardown, competitor_landscape, and market_opportunity_scan. The exceptions are compose_report and request_a_feature, which are verb-first, creating a minor but noticeable convention break.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is well within the ideal range for a server with this scope. Each tool covers a meaningful part of the small-business investigation workflow, from research planning and data lookup to analysis, diligence, and report assembly.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full investigative lifecycle: data sourcing, market and competitor analysis, business teardown, pricing, reviews, local visibility, broker diligence, and client-ready reporting. Minor gaps exist around direct valuation/financial modeling and non-Twin-Cities dataset access, but data_source_atlas and request_a_feature help agents work around them.

Resources