Skip to main content
Glama

Analook — Competitor Intelligence

by io.github.Gingiris

get_report_status

Poll an analysis job's status.

Args:
    job_id: ID returned from analyze_competitor()

Returns:
    {status: 'running'|'completed'|'failed', progress?: str, report_url?: 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It documents the return structure (status, progress, report_url) and the polling nature, which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects, rate limits, or error handling, though the read-only nature is implied.

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 extremely concise: two short sections for arguments and returns, with no wasted words. Every sentence contributes essential information, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the main usage pattern and return values. It does not mention the required 'context' parameter or the optional 'conversation_id', but the schema provides those details. Minor gaps in error behavior or pagination are acceptable for a polling tool.

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 important meaning to job_id by stating it is the 'ID returned from analyze_competitor()', which is not present in the schema. The context and conversation_id parameters are already described in the schema (coverage 67%), so the description complements it well for the otherwise unexplained job_id.

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's function: 'Poll an analysis job's status.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the reference to job_id from analyze_competitor() distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_competitor and get_report.

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 implies when to use it—after calling analyze_competitor() and waiting for results—by explaining that job_id is the ID returned from that function. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the polling context is clear.

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