Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

competitor_moves

Read-only

Mouvements concurrents — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CMO). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Answers: What have my named competitors done recently — releases, pricing changes, hires, funding? · Which competitor signals are the most urgent right now and what should I do about them? Reference case: Notion — moves de ClickUp, Asana, Coda. Inputs are validated server-side — send the documented case fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNoIf true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
focusNo
competitorsYes
selfCompanyYes

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds context about returning a 'structured, audited deliverable' and server-side input validation. However, the description does not mention the async behavior (the async parameter is described only in the schema) nor outline potential rate limits or data freshness.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is moderately concise but includes extraneous elements like a French title and a reference case that adds little clarity. The bullet points and dashes create some structure, but the overall flow is disjointed. It could be more streamlined and front-loaded with essential details.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (nested objects, async option, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not specify the delivery format beyond 'structured, audited deliverable', nor does it explain the async polling mechanism. The presence of the 'async' parameter is not mentioned in the description, leaving a gap in understanding how the tool behaves.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only the 'async' parameter has a description). The main description fails to explain any of the four parameters: 'focus', 'competitors', and 'selfCompany' have no description in either the schema or the tool description. This leaves the agent without critical context on what values are expected or how to structure the input.

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 is for analyzing recent competitor moves (releases, pricing, hires, funding) and identifying urgent signals with actionable recommendations. It includes a reference case (Notion vs ClickUp, Asana, Coda) but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'competitive_deep_dive' or 'competitor_intel'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by framing the questions the tool answers ('What have my named competitors done recently?' and 'Which signals are urgent?'). No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The reference case provides context but not a clear directive.

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

All mcp-knowledge 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

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in competitive intelligence, ESG, and risk assessment. For example, there are multiple tools for competitor analysis (competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, competitor_moves, etc.) with unclear boundaries. Agents would struggle to select the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of English and French, and follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case (e.g., abm_architect, action_plan_esg), while others are verb-focused (e.g., content_catalog, fx_rate). The lack of a uniform naming convention makes it hard for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 271 tools, the server is excessively large. Even for a broad knowledge domain, this number of tools makes discovery and selection inefficient. Typical coherent servers have 3-15 tools; this has an order of magnitude more, indicating poor scoping.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains (compliance, finance, marketing, HR, etc.), but the coverage is uneven due to redundancy. Key areas have multiple overlapping tools, while some sub-domains may still have gaps. Overall, the surface is broad but not well-curated.

Resources