Skip to main content
Glama

Analook — Competitor Intelligence

by io.github.Gingiris

get_report_markdown

Fetch the competitor analysis report as human-readable Markdown.

Suitable for piping into agents that prefer text over structured JSON,
or for direct display to end users.

Args:
    job_id: ID from analyze_competitor(); status must be 'completed'

Returns:
    {markdown: str} or {error: str}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes
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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return type as {markdown: str} or {error: str} and the requirement that the job be completed. It does not mention error specifics, rate limits, or side effects, but for a read-only fetch this is acceptable; however, more detail could be provided.

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 compact: a clear purpose statement, one use-case sentence, and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple; the description covers purpose, use cases, key parameter, and return format. It omits the required context parameter, but the schema documents it. It could more explicitly contrast with get_report, but the sibling list provides enough context. Overall, it is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description adds meaningful context for job_id (source from analyze_competitor, status requirement) that the schema lacks (only 'Job Id'). It does not mention context or conversation_id, but those have detailed schema descriptions. With schema coverage at 67%, the baseline is 3, and the added job_id detail elevates it to 4.

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 fetches the competitor analysis report as human-readable Markdown, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_report (likely structured JSON) by emphasizing the format and intended use cases.

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 states it is suitable for piping into agents preferring text or for direct display, implying a contrast with structured JSON alternatives. It also provides a clear precondition: job_id must come from analyze_competitor and status must be 'completed'. It does not name alternatives explicitly but gives enough contextual guidance.

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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes: job submission, status polling, report retrieval, and listing are separated. Some potential confusion exists between get_report/get_report_markdown (same content, different format) and get_report_status/get_growth_audit (both return status for different job types), but descriptions clarify these boundaries.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: analyze_competitor, browse_public_reports, get_growth_audit, get_report, get_report_markdown, get_report_status, list_my_reports, run_growth_audit. No mixed conventions or camelCase.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well-scoped for a competitor intelligence server, covering two distinct workflows (competitor analysis and growth audit) plus report browsing and retrieval. Each tool serves a clear purpose without feeling bloated or skeletal.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered: submit analysis, poll status, fetch report in JSON/Markdown, list personal reports, and browse public reports. Minor gaps remain, such as no way to list past growth audits or cancel/delete jobs, but these are not critical for the primary use case.

Resources