Skip to main content
Glama

Analook — Competitor Intelligence

by io.github.Gingiris-1031

list_my_reports

List your recent competitor analysis reports (up to 50).

Requires authentication. Returns a lightweight list (id, url,
product_name, created_at, status) — use get_report(job_id) to fetch
the full report for any of them.

Returns:
    {reports: [{id, url, product_name, created_at, status}, ...]}

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."
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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses authentication requirements, the limit of 50 items, the lightweight field set, and the recommended follow-up action. It does not mention sorting order or error behavior, but the essential behavioral traits for a list operation are covered.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes useful behavioral notes in a compact form, though the return structure is described twice (once in prose and once in a Returns block), creating slight redundancy that could be trimmed.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return format, authentication, limit, and a pointer to the next step. It does not specify sorting or the meaning of 'recent,' but the overall picture is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results.

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% for both parameters (context and conversation_id), so the tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already provides detailed descriptions; the tool description does not enhance or clarify them further.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('your recent competitor analysis reports'), and a key constraint (up to 50). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that full reports require get_report(job_id), making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 provides clear context for use: it is the listing entry point for recent reports and points to get_report for full details. It lacks an explicit exclusion for browse_public_reports, but the focus on 'your' reports makes the appropriate use case apparent.

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