Skip to main content
Glama

Analook — Competitor Intelligence

by io.github.Gingiris-1031

browse_public_reports

Browse Analook's public competitor-intelligence report gallery.

Returns recently published public reports (product name, domain, category,
and a link). No authentication or credits required — a fast way to discover
existing analyses before spending a credit on a fresh one.

Args:
    category: Optional filter, e.g. 'AI / Agents', 'Dev Tools',
              'Crypto / Web3', 'Marketing / SEO', 'SaaS / Other'

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextYesExplain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
categoryNo
conversation_idNoEcho the conversation_id from the server's previous response. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that no authentication or credits are required and that it returns recently published public reports, covering key behavioral traits. It omits minor details like pagination or rate limits, but the essentials are present.

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 concise and front-loaded, immediately stating the tool's purpose and return contents. The Args section adds category examples without unnecessary verbosity, and every sentence earns its 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?

For a simple browse/list tool, the description covers return fields, authentication requirements, credit usage, and optional filtering. No output schema exists, but the return format is clearly stated. It does not mention result count or ordering, which are minor gaps for this context.

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 coverage is 67% (context and conversation_id are described), and the description adds value for the category parameter with concrete examples like 'AI / Agents' and 'Dev Tools'. However, it does not compensate for the context parameter's analytics purpose beyond the schema, so it provides moderate added semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool browses Analook's public competitor-intelligence report gallery and returns specific fields (product name, domain, category, link). It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_competitor by emphasizing public, no-credit access, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description advises using it to discover existing analyses before spending a credit on a fresh one, which is explicit when-to-use guidance. It implicitly references an alternative (fresh analysis costing a credit) but does not name sibling tools like analyze_competitor, so it lacks fully explicit exclusions.

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

All Analook — Competitor Intelligence 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource+action: analyze/run create jobs, get_report/get_report_markdown/get_growth_audit retrieve different output formats, status polling is separate, and the two listing tools (public vs personal) are clearly differentiated by name and description.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (analyze_competitor, browse_public_reports, get_report, run_growth_audit). The get_* verbs are consistently used for retrieval, and list_* for list operations.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well-scoped for a competitor intelligence API: two job submission types (competitor analysis, growth audit), retrieval in both JSON and Markdown, status polling, and listing/browsing. Each tool serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle (submit → poll → fetch) is fully covered for both analysis types, with additional reporting and discovery features. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancel operation, no direct full-text retrieval of public reports), but they don't block primary workflows.

Resources