Skip to main content
Glama

HelloBooks AI Agents MCP Server

by io.github.HelloBooksAIAgents

list_competitors

Return competitor positioning entries (QuickBooks, Xero, FreshBooks, Wave, Zoho Books, Tally) with where HelloBooks wins, where the competitor wins, and pricing notes. Optional country, tier (primary / secondary), and id filters.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoReturn a single competitor by id (e.g. "quickbooks", "xero", "tally").
tierNoFilter to head-on rivals (primary) or adjacent / segment-specific overlaps (secondary).
countryNoOnly return competitors whose primary market is this country, or who are also evaluated in this market.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it 'returns' data, implying a safe read operation. It does not mention any destructive behavior or side effects, but for a listing tool, this is acceptable. Lacks details on rate limits or idempotency, but the context is clear.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the key information (what is returned) and then lists filters. Every word adds value, no fluff.

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 description mentions returned fields (wins, pricing notes) but does not specify the exact structure (e.g., array of objects, keys). With no output schema, a bit more detail on the response format would be helpful, but it is adequate for a simple list tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by listing the specific competitors and clarifying the meaning of 'tier' (head-on rivals vs adjacent). It also states the returned fields (wins, pricing notes), which goes beyond the schema.

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 returns competitor positioning entries for specific named competitors (QuickBooks, Xero, etc.) with specific fields (wins, pricing notes). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools which are analysis, compliance, or feature-related.

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 the tool is for retrieving competitor data with optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. However, given the sibling tools are all different (e.g., analyze_balance_sheet, compliance_capabilities), the usage context is clear enough from the tool name and domain.

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

All HelloBooks AI Agents MCP Server 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are largely distinct, each targeting a specific report type (balance sheet, P&L, trial balance) or functionality. Some overlap exists between QBO and Xero variants, but descriptions clearly differentiate them. Overall, an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_balance_sheet, list_articles). A few exceptions like free_tier_eligibility and how_munimji_helps break the pattern but are still readable and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 29 tools, the count is on the higher side but justified by the domain's breadth (financial analysis, compliance, migration, pricing, etc.). Some reduction through parameterization (e.g., merging QBO/Xero variants) would improve scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers key areas: financial statement analysis, compliance, migration estimation, feature/pricing info, and partner programs. Missing are direct data manipulation tools (e.g., create/edit journal entries), which may be intentional for a read-only analysis agent.

Resources