Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Andru

by io.github.geter-andru
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Weigh the buyer's alternatives

get_competitive_positioning
Read-only

Use this when a buyer is weighing another option, or the person asks how they compare with a named alternative. Treats it as diligence for the buyer: where the alternative fits this buyer better, where the person's product does, and questions that help the buyer decide for themselves. Grounded in the account's ICP.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "competitorName": "<competitorName>"
    },
    "name": "get_competitive_positioning"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNoAdditional context (e.g., "enterprise deal", "competing on price")
verticalNoThe industry the user sells into (e.g., "fintech", "healthcare", "defense"). Infer from conversation context — the user's product description, company name, or the companies they're asking about. If unclear, ask.
targetRoleNoThe buyer role being evaluated (e.g., "CFO", "CTO", "VP Sales"). Infer from context — often explicit in the user's question. If not mentioned, default to the most senior relevant role for their vertical.
competitorNameYesThe alternative the buyer is weighing (a product or company).
competitorFeaturesNoWhat that alternative offers, as you know it.
productDescriptionNoA brief description of what the user's product does and who it's for. Infer this from the conversation if the user has already described their product. If the user hasn't mentioned their product yet, ask them: "What does your product do, and who do you sell to?" before calling this tool.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / competitorFeatures / description
      Previous value: -"Known competitor features or capabilities"New value: +"What that alternative offers, as you know it."
    • changedInput schema / properties / competitorName / description
      Previous value: -"Competitor company name"New value: +"The alternative the buyer is weighing (a product or company)."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and external-knowledge behavior are covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the output is framed as buyer diligence, includes where the alternative fits better, where the seller's product fits better, and decision-support questions, grounded in the account's ICP.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the usage condition and then explains the treatment and grounding. It is efficient, though slightly dense and could separate the output framing from the context statement for faster parsing.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description conceptually explains what the tool provides: a buyer-diligence comparison, fit on both sides, and questions for the buyer to decide. Combined with the rich parameter schema and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call and interpret it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly, including inference and fallback guidance. The description adds only the 'Grounded in the account's ICP' framing and does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond the structured fields, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: comparing the seller's product against a named alternative for a buyer who is weighing options. It is specific about the scenario and output focus, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to distinguish from beyond the usage scenario.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions — when a buyer is weighing another option or asks how they compare with a named alternative. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contextual guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

All Andru toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources