Skip to main content
Glama

Analook — Competitor Intelligence

analyze_competitor

Submit a competitor analysis job.

Analyzes a competitor's website across 15+ data sources (SEO, traffic,
social, Product Hunt, GitHub, Wayback Machine history, AI-generated
insights, etc.) and returns a job_id. Use get_report_status(job_id) to
poll and get_report(job_id) to retrieve results when status='completed'.

Typical analysis takes 2-5 minutes. Requires authentication (deducts 1
credit from your Analook balance).

Args:
    url: Competitor website URL (e.g. 'https://linear.app' or 'lovable.dev')
    product_name: Optional product name override (defaults to domain)
    lang: Report language, 'en' (default) or 'zh' for Chinese output

Returns:
    {job_id: str, status: 'started', poll_url: str} on success
    {error: str, hint?: str} on auth/validation failure

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
langNo
contextYesExplain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as "a user", "the customer", or "an account". Example: "Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution."
llm_modelYesThe exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. "claude-opus-4-8", "gpt-5.2"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass "unknown" — never guess.
product_nameNo
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Previous value: -"Explain 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.\""New value: +"Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\""
    • addedInput schema / properties / llm_model
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. \"claude-opus-4-8\", \"gpt-5.2\"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass \"unknown\" — never guess.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "url",
      -  "context"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "url",
      +  "context",
      +  "llm_model"
      +]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Explain 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.\"",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / conversation_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Echo 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.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "url"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "url",
      +  "context"
      +]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so exceptionally: it discloses the async nature, the 2-5 minute duration, the auth requirement, the 1-credit deduction, and the exact success/error return shapes. An agent can accurately predict side effects and failure modes.

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 well structured with purpose, workflow, Args, and Returns sections; every sentence earns its place and the key workflow is front-loaded. The length is justified by the complexity of an async job with polling and retry implications.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The workflow and return types are well covered, which matters especially because there is no output schema. But the description fails to document context, llm_model, and conversation_id — including two required fields — leaving a meaningful gap for an agent assembling a valid call from the description alone.

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?

The description adds real value for url (with examples), product_name (defaults to domain), and lang ('en'/'zh'). However, the Args list omits three schema parameters — including required context and llm_model — so it does not fully compensate for the 50% schema coverage and could mislead an agent about which arguments are mandatory.

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 — 'Submit a competitor analysis job' — and elaborates with 'Analyzes a competitor's website across 15+ data sources'. It also names the downstream retrieval siblings (get_report_status, get_report), so an agent can distinguish submission from retrieval even before inspecting schemas.

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 explicitly tells the agent to poll with get_report_status(job_id) and retrieve with get_report(job_id) when status='completed', which is strong workflow guidance. It does not contrast with run_growth_audit or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.