Skip to main content
Glama

Analook — Competitor Intelligence

by io.github.Gingiris

run_growth_audit

Run a full Growth Audit — three linked strategic reports for a product.

Unlike analyze_competitor (a single 15-signal intelligence snapshot), a
Growth Audit produces an Executive Summary + a Diagnosis Report + a 30-day
Action Plan, grounded in real channel/tactic playbooks. Best for 'how do I
grow THIS product' rather than 'what is this competitor doing'.

Takes ~4-6 minutes. Requires authentication and deducts 10 credits. Poll
with get_growth_audit(job_id) until status='completed'.

Args:
    url: Product website URL to audit
    product_name: Optional product name override (defaults to domain)
    lang: Report language, 'en' (default) or 'zh'

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
langNo
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."
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.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: discloses the ~4-6 minute runtime, authentication requirement, 10-credit cost, asynchronous nature, and the polling mechanism via get_growth_audit. It stops short of detailing failure modes or edge cases, but the provided context is substantial for an unannotated tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then moves efficiently through sibling comparison, usage guidance, async behavior, and parameters. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or padding, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 multi-report, credits-based, asynchronous tool, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the output composition, the polling step, and the resource cost. However, it misses the required 'context' parameter and the 'conversation_id' echo requirement, which are part of the full calling contract, slightly reducing completeness.

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 low (40%), so the description must compensate, but it covers only url, product_name, and lang, adding reasonable meaning (e.g., product_name defaults to domain, lang accepts 'en'/'zh'). Critically, it omits the required 'context' parameter and 'conversation_id', both of which carry important instructions in the schema. This gap prevents a higher score.

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: 'Run a full Growth Audit — three linked strategic reports for a product.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool analyze_competitor by detailing the three-report output (Executive Summary, Diagnosis Report, 30-day Action Plan), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with analyze_competitor ('a single 15-signal intelligence snapshot') and states the best use case: 'how do I grow THIS product' versus 'what is this competitor doing'. It also tells the agent when to use get_growth_audit for polling, covering both when-to-use and alternative.

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