Skip to main content
Glama

Analook — Competitor Intelligence

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must self-disclose behavior. It states that authentication is required, that the response is a lightweight list containing specified fields, and that there is a 50-item cap. This covers many important traits. However, it does not mention, for example, whether the results are sorted or if there are any pagination/error behaviors, which would make it even more transparent.

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 and information-dense. It opens with the core purpose, then provides necessary operational details in three sentences, and includes a clearly formatted return structure. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly includes the return shape using a JSON-like block. It also covers the key context: authentication, the 50-item limit, the lightweight nature, and the path to the full report via a sibling tool. For a simple list operation, this is a complete specification.

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 does not explain the 'context' and 'conversation_id' parameters. However, the input schema provides descriptions for both (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The schema descriptions are generic and about the calling convention rather than the tool's domain, but they still fulfill the need. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning.

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 'List your recent competitor analysis reports', which specifies the action (list) and the resource (my reports). The 'my' clearly distinguishes this from the sibling browse_public_reports, and the 'lightweight list' note differentiates it from get_report. The specific scope (up to 50) further sharpens the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells the agent to use get_report(job_id) when a full report is needed, thereby indicating when this tool should NOT be used (for full report content). It also sets a usage expectation with the 'up to 50' limit. This provides clear guidance on selecting between list and detail tools.

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.

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.